ABSTRACT

FOR GOD AND COUNTRY: THE POLITICIZATION OF ENGLISH

by Nathan Hepworth

English martyrology in the seventeenth century developed into a highly dynamic and flexible mode of writing which built on the foundation of Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, but innovated in response to new social and spiritual threats. Seventeenth‐century martyrologists almost unilaterally addressed issues internal to , rather than sharing Foxe’s pan‐European scope. Specifically, the genre became a way for repressed faith communities in England to express their dissent from the , and for royalists to bolster the restored English monarchy. Over the century, the definition of a loosened and, as the ideological underpinnings of martyrdom became watered down, the application of martyrological rhetoric broadened. Martyrology no longer offered only a spiritual discussion, but added a literary element applicable to a variety of social and political arguments.

FOR GOD AND COUNTRY: THE POLITICIZATION OF ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History by Nathan H. Hepworth Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2011

Advisor______Carla Pestana

Reader______Wietse de Boer

Reader______Renée Baernstein TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION------1

CHAPTER ONE -- PATTERNS IN PUBLICATION------5 - Historiography……………………………………………….………………………………………….……………..5 - Martyrdom Revitalized…………………………………………………………………………….……………….7

CHAPTER TWO -- DEFENDING THE FAITH------14 - The Foxean Foundation…………………………………………………………………………………….……14 - Persecution Attacked…………………………………………………………………………………………..…18 - The Quaker Rendition……………………………………………………………………………………….…...36 - Standard Deviations………………………………………………………………………………………..……..44

CHAPTER THREE — OF THE REALM------49 - Royalist Retrenchment…………………………………………………………………………………………..49 - The Royal Martyr…………………………………………………………………………………………………...51 - New Martyrs, Old Story………………………………………………………………………………………….56 - The Rebel Writer…………………………………………………………………………………………………….71

CONCLUSION------74

ii

LIST OF TABLES

- Table I……………………...……………………………………………………..……………………………………..10

- Table II………………..………………………………………………………………………………….……………...75

iii Introduction to the Thesis

Early modern martyrology was a literary sacral genre with a heritage entwined with medieval , but which in England became distinct and separate over the course of the seventeenth century. Writings about martyrdom were always concerned with defining, identifying, and utilizing martyrs for specific rhetorical ends. Through this literary genre early modern churches—beginning with that of —found the necessary leverage to admonish and defend their embattled ideologies. In England that recourse to the defensive discourse of martyrology did not remain the preserve of entire creeds, but was taken up by factions and minority communities within English , and of political affiliations which cut across the lines of faith. Consequently, the increasingly diverse positions that martyrology was used to defend gradually altered the genre itself, loosened its definitions, and opened its core rhetoric up to an ever-widening application. To fully understand the emergence of martyrology as a Protestant literary mode, it is necessary to chart the continuity from early Catholic traditions of martyrdom. The Protestant Reformation, rather than being a complete repudiation of the Catholic faith, in fact retained many aspects of the Church of Rome. As Will Coster and Andrew Spicer have noted, “Protestantism in its many forms could not entirely dispense with all elements of Catholic practice,” but “could not be completely divorced from intimations of sanctity…suggesting that the Reformation led not to the eradication of older patterns of sanctity in space, but to a modification of those views.”1 This retention within Protestantism of the idea of sanctity applied not only to places but to persons. A vestige of Catholicism which persisted, then, in the Protestant faiths was the trope of the martyr and the accompanying sacral genre of the martyrology. Suzannah Monta’s research has suggested that Catholic concepts of personal sanctity were appropriated and modified by Calvinist Protestant ideology as a consequence of its doctrine of absolute predestination.2 Arguing that readers of the ubiquitous Acts and Monuments sought its author, , as a personal counselor to aid them in gaining assurance of their election, Monta presented an aspect of personal sanctity carried over into Protestantism: the status of predestined election.3 Moreover, she showed how John Foxe used martyrs as paragons of the outward signs of election, very

1 Will Coster and Andrew Spicer. Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe. Introduction. (Cambridge University Press: 2005), 4 – 5 2 Suzannah Monta. Martyrdom and Literature in Early Modern England. (Cambridge University Press: 2005), 20 – 21 3 Ibid

1 much similarly to the Catholic hagiography and its treatment of , who were also assuredly righteous.4 Protestant martyrology had its roots in the Reformation split with the Roman . Prior to the Reformation, the Church employed both as a device for recording church history and as a means of inculcating and promulgating official values and morals. When the Reformation divided Western Christendom, those who split from Roman Catholicism adapted the tradition of martyrology to explain their own suffering at the hands of Church officials. The strife of the Reformation resulted in great numbers of persons encountering persecution for their religious convictions, but their sufferings and deaths could not be remembered via traditional Catholic martyrology. In the face of Catholic allegations that Protestantism was a heretical aberration from true , Protestants needed a way to legitimize their faith. Catholic claims to legitimacy were predicated on an inheritance from the Apostle Peter. Protestants constructing their legitimacy on the basis of ties to an earlier, primitive Christian heritage needed a link between the ancient Christian era, and the present Reformation Protestant.5 Moreover, a discourse had to be crafted which would account for the awkward fact that the Church of Rome had dominated European religion overwhelmingly for a millennium. In order to counter accusations of being a new religion (which carried the implication that it had not been founded by Christ and the Apostles) Protestantism needed to establish a documented continuum of the faithful down though history.6 Beginning in the Early Church and continuing through the and up to their present day, this continuum would support Protestant claims of having been the true Church all along. The effort at legitimization resorted almost naturally to the already-established trope of the martyr, and the accompanying genre of the martyrology.7 This approach conveniently allowed Protestants simultaneously to justify their own faith, while also explaining away the Church of Rome's dominance over European religion: Protestants would assert that the True Church was the persecuted church, and that the line of martyrs claimed by Protestants would represent true Christianity down through the ages.8 Protestantism was to predicate its legitimacy on being the heir of the early-church

4 Ibid 5 John Knott. Discourses of Martyrdom in English Literature: 1563-1694. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 21 6 Monta, Martyrdom and Literature, 35 7 Brad Gregory. Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe. (Cambridge, : Harvard University Press, 1999), 141 8 Gregory, Salvation at Stake, 139 – 184

2 Christians who suffered persecution under the Roman Empire. Protestant writers therefore set about constructing a chronology of persons who had been martyred by the Church of Rome for conscientious objection to Catholic doctrine. In so doing, they reinvented a genre long utilized to support the church they were resisting. As Protestantism developed in England it splintered into competing communities of belief. Some of these faith-groups became identified during the English Civil War with disparate domestic political orientations. Other were not political overtly, but were marginalized or even outlawed by whichever Protestant faith was in the ascendancy, either in Parliament or in the state church. Seventeenth-century English martyrology thus followed the trajectory of religious experience in that nation, and stepped into the political arena, contending for the legitimacy of political party, rather than a religious creed. The historical moment in which the post-Foxean martyrologists wrote was a period of governmental and religious tumult. Writing mostly between 1640 and 1689, the majority of these authors witnessed multiple successive regime changes. They also experienced alterations in the state church and in which variety of English Protestantism was in the ascendancy. The English civil wars had ravaged the nation from 1641 to 1648, followed by a decade-long kingless state. The Church of England, established by , was suspended and then reinstated following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660. In the chaos, the distinction between political and the religious—always interrelated —became increasingly blurred, as parliamentarian and royalist factions increasingly became identified with religious affiliations. In the martyrology of this period, however, there were two general modes of writing in which the fraught relationship of religion and politics were negotiated. In one mode, the doctrinal or spiritual aspects of martyrdom were the ostensible subject, although such works often made arguments which were political in the broad sense. The other approach was to use martyrological forms—which were outwardly spiritual—to make arguments about the nature of the ideal state, and to comment on the behavior of individuals in aiding or hindering that state. The former approach to post-Foxean martyrology I term “religious,” because it most prominently features spiritual arguments and sticks closest to the original conception of the martyrology as a piece of religious writing. The martyrs in those writings were defined as such because they died or suffered for the true faith. The latter category of writings I term “political” martyrology because such works revolved around the issue of the legitimacy of monarchy and defined their martyrs as those who supported the divinely ordained King.

3 That is not to say that royalist writers of “political” martyrology did not also believe that they were adhering to the true faith in defending the king, for they assuredly did. In the mind of a royalist, there was no clean-cut distinction between dying for God and dying for King. In terms of the discourse of martyrological writing, however, there was a difference in how royalist martyrs died. Rather than being executed as civilians by an institutional legal hierarchy, many were slain as combatants in battle. As Foxe did not recognize death in combat as constituting martyrdom, and such deaths were never found in “religious” martyrologies, the political martyrologies represent an important development in the genre and form a distinct subset of writings within the tradition. The religious and political works are for these reasons treated separately, although, as noted, the use of such terms must be understood to allow for some overlap in the motivations of the writers. Although Anglophone martyrology developed and changed with English society, it did not lose all of its key features which set it apart from other literary genres. Consistent throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were a set of textual elements. First, the works either self-identified themselves as martyrologies or stated their topic to be one or more martyrs, making explicit use of the term “martyr.” This language was necessary in order to lay claim to the spiritual discourse of martyrology. Second, they identified a cause for which the slain person or persons died, and argued that the cause for which they died was what distinguished the fallen as martyrs, which was essential to the definition of a martyr. Thirdly, these texts included some kind of catalog, usually descriptive or biographical, of a number of either martyrs or persecutors. This element’s function was to assert that the deaths of the martyrs asserted or demonstrated the truth of some higher cause—a key goal of all martyrological writing. And finally, the early modern martyrology always attempted to vindicate a cause, community or belief system. In some cases, the writer accomplished that vindication by vilifying the opposing position, usually utilizing the negative examples of persecutors rather than the positive examples of the martyrs. By necessity, for a text to accomplish the goals and utilize the discourse of martyrology, these four elements had to be present. The texts this thesis analyzes all conform to this basic definition of a martyrology.

4 Chapter One -- patterns in publication

Part I -- Historiography English Protestant martyrology in the mid-seventeenth century was to an extent a separate phenomenon from its sixteenth-century predecessor. The corpus of English martyrology of the period 1640 to 1689 was produced for distinctly different reasons and served different purposes than that of John Foxe, who in 1563 published the first Protestant martyrology in English. These later works demonstrated a fundamental shift in the character and discourse of Anglophone martyrology away from the issues which occupied Foxe's Acts and Monuments. The publication trajectory of this genre saw an isolated boom in production at mid-century. The reasons for this sudden and brief explosion of new writings were endemic to the period and distinct from the impetus behind Foxe's sixteenth-century martyrology. These new martyrologies were different in two main ways. First, their religious discourse was no longer aimed against Catholicism, but against other Protestants within England. Second, the trope of the martyr and the platform of martyrological writing were appropriated for the purposes of the intra-national political dialogues of the time. In the seventeenth century, then, English Protestant martyrology shifted away from a mode of international and inter-confessional debate aimed at justifying Protestantism in general, toward an intra-national, intra-Protestant debate aimed at settling the internal dissensions which embroiled English society. The writers of these new martyrologies did not have to invent new material, but rather reused and reinterpreted early-church and medieval martyrs as having been part of the Protestant heritage. They did this by asserting that many of the martyrs canonized in the Catholic , or recorded in Catholic martyrologies had believed in key Protestant dogmas. In this way they appropriated both the form and the content of the martyrologies to support their own religious communities. Ironically, Protestants also retained from Catholicism the central doctrine associated with the qualifications of a martyr, as iterated by St. Augustine: “Not the punishment, but the cause, makes a martyr.”9 In the new martyrological tradition, the cause changed, but its importance as a defining criteria remained the same. A sufferer had to do more than merely die to be acclaimed a Protestant martyr—one had to die for truth and also demonstrate the qualities of one assured of a blessed afterlife. A true martyr showed serenity, unwavering faith, and reservation in the face of death. Without these attributes a sufferer was open to criticism as a false martyr.10 Because of this, Protestant martyrologists writing to defend their creed typically spent substantial time in documenting the pious acts and patient sufferings of their

9 Gregory, Salvation at Stake, 316 10 Gregory, Salvation at Stake, 316-323

5 chosen martyrs. In order to legitimize their faith, martyrologists had to demonstrate that they were writing of legitimate martyrs. Among the best-known of these writers, and the first to write in English was John Foxe, author of the foundational Acts and Monuments of These Latter and Perillous Days, touching Matters of the Church. Better known as the Acts and Monuments, or simply as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, this immense tome was first published in 1563. With it John Foxe opened the field for a new literary form in English: the Protestant martyrology. As a consequence, the man and his work have dominated modern Anglophone scholarship on martyrdom and martyrological writing. Extensive work has been done on John Foxe’s publication history, personal life, and textual genetics across sequential editions. Such books as John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church by Viggo Olsen, The Elect Nation; the Meaning and Relevance of Foxe's Book of Martyrs by William Haller, John Foxe and the by Loades, and John Foxe and the Joy of Suffering by John Knott have explored John Foxe’s relationship to English society and religious-governmental infrastructure.11 The dominance of John Foxe in martyrology scholarship is further demonstrated by volumes such as John Foxe: an Historical Perspective, edited by David Loades, which collected papers presented at the (second) John Foxe Colloquium, at Oxford in 1997, devoted solely to John Foxe studies.12 By contrast, there is no colloquium devoted either individually or collectively to John Tutchin, or Heath James, or Clarke—martyrologists of the mid-to-late seventeenth century. Brad Gregory has also given serious attention to early modern Protestant martyrologies, in his book Salvation at Stake. Particularly studying the controversy over true versus false martyrs, Gregory delved into the rhetorical and theological means by which martyrologists sought to prove the sanctity of those whom their own creed claimed as martyrs. Gregory gave a brief biographical overview of each of the four major sixteenth-century martyrologists: Foxe, , Ludwig Rabus and Adriaan Van Haemstede. He studied them as a group, focusing on their broad similarities. He then treated on the two other major martyrological traditions of that century, the Anabaptist and Catholic. Although comprehensive of martyrology written within the sixteenth century, Salvation at Stake did not address the lesser-known martyrologies of the seventeenth century, leaving room for work to be done on such men as John Tutchin, Clement Cotton, and Heath James.

11 Olsen, Viggo. John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973 Haller, William The Elect Nation; the Meaning and Relevance of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. (New York: Harper & Row, 1963) David Loades, ed. John Foxe and the English Reformation. (Aldershot, England: Scolar Press: 1997) Knott, John. “John Foxe and the Joy of Suffering.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996): 721 – 734 12 David Loades, ed. John Foxe: an Historical Perspective. (Aldershot, England: Oxford University Press, 1999)

6 Analysis of the discourse of martyrology has been a chief subject of interest for scholars of early-modern English religious history, particularly John Knott and Suzannah Monta. In their respective books Discourses of Martyrdom in English Literature, and Martyrdom and Literature in Early Modern England, Knott and Monta examined the constructed nature of the attribution of martyr status to an executed person, as well as how various communities of faith from which martyrs came responded to and generated persons willing to die for their creed.13 Death, self-sacrifice and community continue to be central themes in the current scholarship on martyrology. Present scholarship explores the relationship between individuals willing to die for their creed and the subsequent effect of legitimizing that creed. This research angle remains popular among scholars because it allows the researcher to probe the formation of collective identity in emergent communities of faith. Other themes arising in martyrology studies include print culture and gender. As pertains to England, however, these works all depend only on John Foxe, and address only the sixteenth- century. Knott and Monta, who represent the bulk of discourse analysis done on martyrological writings, also looked primarily at Foxe and his prominent continental contemporaries Ludwig Rabus, Jean Crespin and Adriaan Cornelius van Haemstede—German, Genevan, and Dutch Protestants, respectively. Broader works on martyrdom and martyrological texts have similarly chosen to deal with only the earliest, best- known martyrologists and the phenomenon of martyrdom in general. Such is the case with Martyrs and martyrologie : papers read at the 1992 Summer Meeting and the 1993 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, edited by Diana Wood, which dealt with a wide variety of studies in martyrdom and martyrology, none of which discuss the English writers other than John Foxe.14

Part II – Martyrdom Revitalized John Foxe, however, was not the sole martyrologist writing for an English readership. After dominating the market for martyrological writing for some eight decades, he was later joined in the seventeenth century by an increasing number of writers. Some of these authors relied on Foxe for their material, but many of them did their own original work. Both these later types of martyrological writers have been ignored in the secondary literature. Scholars, of course, are aware of these writers. The

13 Knott, Discourses of Martyrdom, 13 Monta, Martyrdom in Literature, 35 – 39 14 Diana Wood, ed. Martyrs and martyrologies : papers read at the 1992 Summer Meeting and the 1993 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1993)

7 recently revised Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has disseminated biographical information about many of them. Notwithstanding this, the scholarship on Anglophone martyrology has not undertaken a comparative and intensive analysis of these writers, their place in English history, and the significance of their writings. Moreover, the rhetorical emphases of these writings—what messages they elaborated via their discussion of martyrs, and how they shaped their material—has also been left entirely unstudied by the scholarship on early modern English martyrology. The properties and place of seventeenth-century English martyrology therefore presents a body of literature in need of deeper consideration and analysis. Early Protestant writers such as John Foxe, Adriaan van Haemstede, Jean Crespin, and Ludwig Rabus, all tended to write broadly inclusive martyrologies.15 Their works were not Anglican, Genevan, Lutheran or Huguenot in doctrinal assertions and martyrs included, but merely and broadly Reformed.16 Competition among these creeds did not at all characterize early Reformed martyrology. Such an inclusive, pan-protestant approach to writing martyrology presumably arose as these writers sought to situate themselves and their faith against the claims of the Catholic Church to sole spiritual legitimacy. They constructed their books with a focus on the main conflict with the still-dominant Roman Catholic Church. Later martyrology (at least in the English case) seemed to have been a trend toward national and sectional as well as political emphases. Even the titles of later martyrologies indicate this shift: The English Martyrology (1640), by John Wilson; A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors (1665), by Heath James; and The Western Martyrology…Containing the Lives, Trials, and Dying-Speeches of all those Eminent Protestants that Suffer’d in the West of England (1693, orig. 1689), by John Tutchin. As the titles elaborate, these works demonstrated a specific attention to the martyrs within one nation—a narrow focus that was not seen with any of the four major sixteenth-century martyrologists, who all wrote on martyrs from across the European continent. Martyrology in England increasingly became an English martyrology. Honing their focus even more narrowly, some mid-seventeenth century martyrologies demonstrated special attention to persecutions occurring within the city of . Chestlin’s work of The churches eleventh persecution being a brief of the fanatick persecution of the Protestant clergy of the Church of England, more particularly within the city of London, and John Dunton’s A Generall Bill of the Mortality of the Clergy of London fall into this category. Martyrdom within London may have taken

15 Gregory, Salvation at Stake, 184 16 Ibid

8 on a special significance among English martyrdoms, since violation of the special rights and privileges which Londoners held seemginly elicited especial attention. Other works of the mid-seventeenth century also showed a distinct relationship emerging between the language of politics and that of religion. Such works included: Persecution impeached as a traytor against God, by Edward Burrough; A Generall Bill of the Mortality of the Clergy of London…and their loyalty to their King, under that great persecution by the Presbyterians (1662), by John Dunton; The Devil’s martyrs: or Plain dealing, in Answer to the Jacobite Speeches of…William Paul…and John Hall (1716), also by John Dunton. By the mingling of political with religious terminology these titles demonstrate a growing link between intra-Protestant tensions and overtly political subject matter. This change in the discourse of martyrologies is particularly evident in such phrases as “their loyalty to the King, under that great persecution by the Presbyterians,” and the relating of “the Devil's martyrs” (heretical anti-martyrs) to proponents of a political movement. The association which was drawn between martyrdom and contemporary political events was striking. Take for instance the following works: The acts and monuments of our late Parliament (1659), A continuation of the acts and monuments of our late Parliament (1659), and The acts and monuments of the late Rump (1660). Although the latter works were not martyrologies, their titular use of Foxe's phrase “Actes and Monuments” in relation to Parliament rather than to religious martyrs demonstrate that the currency of martyrological language was gaining broader play in English society during this period. Other texts such as The royall martyr. Or, King Charles the First no man of blood but a martyr for his people; The loyall martyrology; and A new book of loyal English martyrs and confessors made the connection between martyrological language and domestic political content even more apparent. With so many trends emerging within seventeenth-century martyrology , it is critical to define the relationship of the later martyrologists to the foundational text in English—John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments. Were these developments occurring alongside the continued printing of John Foxe’s work? When exactly did martyrologies with new emphases or innovative characteristics begin to appear? To answer my preliminary questions, I performed a bibliographical survey of the publication record of martyrological texts, using the English Short Title Catalogue volumes covering 1475 to 1800, in conjunction with the Stationer’s Company Register, Early English Books Online, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I found that Foxe alone constituted the field of Anglophone martyrology from 1563 until 1613, when Clement Cotton published his book The Mirror of Martyrs. This text was the only companion to Acts and Monuments until John Wilson’s (Catholic) English Martyrology of 1640. From this time onward

9 the number of new works rapidly increased. Whereas in the fifty-year period 1563 to 1613 only one martyrology (Foxe’s) was produced, from 1613 to 1659—a period of only 46 years—a total of five non- Foxean martyrologies appeared. From 1659 to 1677 the total number was up to ten post-Foxean martyrologies—a doubling, in 18 years, of the previous 96 years’ worth of non-Foxean martyrologies. This rise was not merely the result of increasing numbers of publishing presses, for in the subsequent 55 years, from 1677 to 1732 only an additional two martyrologies had been produced. This demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the period 1640 to 1677 represents a unique moment in the trajectory of martyrological publication, neither precedented nor repeated in English history. Cross-referencing this data with the publication record of Acts and Monuments I uncovered a startling pattern. Not only did the later martyrologies proliferate during a narrow period in time, but their emergence coincided with an apparently complete forsaking of the original English martyrology. Although Foxe’s work had seen regular, successive editions every decade since it was first produced, his book abruptly ceased being republished. After a new edition in 1641, John Foxe did not receive a subsequent printing until 1684. This interval directly overlapped with the period during which other authors producing martyr accounts were multiplying exponentially. This convergence indicated a shift in the production of martyrology in this window of the 1640s through the and 80s. Whatever the cause of Foxe’s absence from the presses, this period very much welcomed other—perhaps fundamentally different—voices speaking on the same subject. Observe the chart below: Table I. This chart shows how many new, non-Foxe martyrologies were extant by the time of new editions of Foxe. The reprints given represent the entire publication history of Foxe's Acts and Monuments during the period 1563 – 1732. Please note the gap in Fox reprints from 1641 until 1684, while other writers proliferated.

New martyrologies...... Editions of Foxe st 0...... 1563 1

0...... 1570 reprint 0...... 1576 reprint 0...... 1583 reprint 0...... 1589 abridgment 0...... 1596 reprint

10 0...... 1610 reprint 1...... 1632 reprint 2...... 1641 reprint 5...... 1659 ---no Foxe reprints--- 9...... 1675 ---no Foxe reprints--- 10...... 1677 ---no Foxe reprints--- 11...... 1684 reprint 12...... 1732 abridgment

Further examination of the publishing record revealed that the last two martyrologies published before the 1684 Foxe reprint were not entirely original works. The 1675 martyrology by Bauthumley, entitled A briefe historicall relation of the most materiall passages and persecucons of the Church of Christ, was “collected out of the Acts and Monuments, written by Mr. Fox.” Rather than an original martyrology, Bauthumley represented a revision of Foxe. The only other martyrology published between 1675 and 1684 was likewise a work that excerpted Foxe, as is indicated by its title: Martyrologia Alphabetike, or, an Alphabetical martyrology containing the trials and dying expressions of many martyrs of note since Christ: extracted out of Foxe’s Acts and monuments of the church. This compendium was followed, in 1702 (after the intervening publication of a Foxe reprint ) by a Book of Martyrs, “extracted out of Foxe and other authors.” This apparent return to Foxe for a source of martyrological information is striking in that it followed of a forty-year period in which publication of the Acts and Monuments was completely displaced, if not outright rejected. Even more intriguing is this: during the period 1675 – 1702, when the works heavily dependent on Foxe were published, the writing of new non-Foxean martyrologies was at a standstill. No new martyrologies, excepting those which were “collected” or “extracted” from Foxe’s work, were published from 1675 to 1702. The only exception was one highly unusual politicized martyrology, which departed radically, and singly, from the mainstream of seventeenth-century martyrology.17At the time of a 1732 abridgement of Foxe, there was, then, only one additional new martyrology since the 1670s, entitled A New Martyrology, written by John Tutchin and printed in 1689. It seems, then, that the flourishing of original martyrological works came from some impetus which had its day between 1641 and 1675. These years cover precisely the period when the most political martyrologies were produced.

17 John Tutchin, A New Martyrology, 1689

11 The case for the distinctiveness of the 1640s through the 1680s in martyrological writing is enhanced by including in the tally of new productions the number of subsequent editions each new martyrology received. From this perspective, the numerical discrepancy between these new writings and the lack of Foxe editions is even more marked. Samuel Clarke’s New Martyrology saw 3 editions between 1651 to 1677, and Robert Young’s of later persecutions and Jacob Bauthumely’s A brief historical relation both were reprinted once between 1663 and 1686. The reprinting of non-Foxean martyrologies during the period of Foxe’s absence from publication shows that there was substantial enough public interest in these new works of martyrology to warrant multiple printings. Suddenly Foxe lost the monopoly on subsequent printings. The trajectory of development in martyrological writing also included a new trend toward shorter works. The seventeenth century witnessed the development of the pamphlet-length martyrology. The emergence of these writings coincided with the shift away from Foxe and the proliferation of new martyrologists. The pamphlet martyrology apparently represented a different manifestation of the same forces affecting martyrology as a whole in England. Whereas the size of the book-length works ranged from just over a hundred pages to well over six hundred pages, these pamphlets nearly all fell within the 30 to 40 page range. This new packaging of martyrological writing either addressed a different audience and readership, or filled a unique space in terms of modes of reading. The smaller works featured drastically lower purchase cost and demanded far less reading time as compared to books. Unlike a book, a pamphlet could not sum up a creed or community of faith’s entire record of martyrs, which martyrs it recognized and why, what constituted martyrdom, and how the faithful should react to and learn from the martyrs’ lives and deaths. A pamphlet could, however, persuade. Shorter works were also uniquely suited to carrying on a faster-paced debate that was impossible in the writing of major, book-length texts. This new packaging of martyrology demonstrates the influence of consumption and the market demands upon the writing and publishing of martyrology. It also indicates the competitiveness of the genre and its increasingly argumentative role. These changes made it essential for authors to get their original statements or responses published quickly. The shape of the pamphlet martyrologies, wholly an invention of the middle seventeenth century, reflected their polemical character. For example, unlike Foxe and his successors, the author of A Generall Bill of the Mortality of the Clergy of London chose to craft his six-page martyrology as an itemized bill of grievances. The anonymous writer recorded in alphabetical list-format the names and

12 sufferings of clergymen of the Church of England who faced persecution during the Civil War.18 Curiously, the compiler offered no commentary on any individual “martyr,” but the vindication of each was left implied by the format. The author used omission as a persuasive literary device. Simply presenting the sufferings of these men without any further context or background, the author asked the reader to sympathize with the victim and criticize the victimizer. This laconic approach to persuasion was a stark deviation from standard martyrology, which in the Foxean model, explained in detail the lives, characteristics, trials, and sufferings of each martyr, with concluding remarks and admonitions. Rather than exhaustively propounding the righteousness of each martyr, the pamphlet used a highly condensed iteration of the central issue of martyrological discourse. Invoking the principle that it was “not the death, but the cause” the author framed a litany of sufferings. Presenting sufferers without an explanation of why they were persecuted, the author could incriminate the persecuting party without having to prove the martyrs’ credentials. He did not demonstrate that these martyrs have common attributes of sound doctrine and serene endurance which support the legitimacy of their faith —the typical approach of full, book-length martyrologies. Instead, this type of martyrology directed itself at smearing the persecutor without explicitly attempting to argue for a position: it was thesis by implication. By using negation of an opponent rather than supporting a proponent, the author rhetorically entered the territory of the polemic. No longer devotional, instructional, or even broadly expository in nature, the pamphlet martyrology was intrinsically conflict-oriented: a piece in a larger debate. This chapter has outlined the overall trajectory of martyrological publication in the early modern period. It has shown that there was a unique moment in Anglophone martyrology in which the genre rapidly multiplied in the number of authors and of published works. Furthermore, it has insinuated that the sudden, explosive production of new books and pamphlets in such a narrow window necessarily had a correspondingly unique cause peculiar to that moment. The following two chapters will explicate the cause of the boom in martyrological publication. That analysis will be divided into separate consideration for works of religious and politicized martyrology.

18 Anon. A generall bill of the mortality of the clergy of London; or, a brief martyrology and catalogue of the learned, grave, religious, and painfull ministers of the City of London who have been imprisoned, plundered, and barbarousl[y] used, and deprived of all livelihood for themselve[s] and their families, in the late rebellion, for their constancy in the Protestant religion, established in this kingdom[,] and their loyalty to their King, under that great persecution by the Presbyterians, 1662

13 Chapter Two – Defending the Faith

Part I -- the Foxean Foundation Martyrologies written after Foxe retained his emphasis on spiritual rather than political matters, but altered the form, content, and thesis. These “post-Foxean” martyrologies can be divided into three general categories: anti-persecution, anti-Catholic, and Quaker martyrologies. The new martyrologies comprised a literary phenomenon in England which developed out of Foxe, but adapted his work to serve diverse arguments relating to domestic religious issues. In addition to inheriting a discourse and format from Foxe, these works communicated amongst themselves and enriched the martyrological genre with further adaptation, commentary, and innovation. Ultimately martyrology became a mode for civic discussion on matters of faith. They ultimately left behind entirely the reasons John Foxe had inaugurated Anglophone martyrology. John Foxe wrote the Acts and Monuments to legitimize Protestantism as a faith. He sought to demonstrate that it was not an innovation in religion, but a continuation of early Christianity. He responded to the Catholic allegation that Protestantism was a new faith not founded by Christ and the Apostles, and therefore an illegitimate departure from orthodox Christianity. In order to combat these allegations, Foxe needed to demonstrate a lineage of the faithful down the through the ages from the time of Christ. He also sought to show that true followers of Christ had all along believed in the core tenets of Protestant doctrine. Beyond merely documenting that believers of his stripe had been present since the Early Church, Foxe argued that the sign of the faithful was that they were afflicted by the unfaithful. Foxe’s theological stance that suffering denotes orthodoxy led him to construct his argument for the legitimacy of Protestantism on the evidence of parallel martyrdoms in both the primitive church and the early modern Protestant faiths. Foxe therefore prefaced the Acts and Monuments with a comparison of his position to that of the fourth-century church historian , whom commissioned to write a martyrology of the faithful.19 He wrote that “following the example of Eusebius this worthy Bishop, although I can not achieve that so perfectly as he hath done, yet have I labored and travailed according to my inform ability, what I may, in collecting and setting forth the acts, fame and memory of these our martyrs of this latter time of the church. [spelling modernized]”20 Foxe addressed and delivered his work to Elizabeth I, comparing her to Constantine. As Constantine ended

19 John Foxe. Preface to Actes and Monumentes Touching Things Done and Practised by the Prelats of the Romishe Churche, Specially in this Realme of England and Scotland, from the Yeare of Our Lord a Thousand vnto the Tyme Nowe Present. (Ed. 1563), 5, http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/main/pref_1563_0005.jsp 20 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Preface, 0008

14 the Diocletian persecutions, so also the Queen saved England from the Marian persecutions. He further entreated Queen Elizabeth to protect him and assist his work, again, after the example of Constantine who had done so for Eusebius in his work for the Early Church. He dedicated his work to her by stating “I offer and present here unto your Majesty, humbly desiring, and nothing misdoubting, but that your highness and singular clemency, likewise following the steps of that noble Constantine, with no less propensity of favor and furtherance, will accept and also assist these my laborious travails to the behoove of the church.”21 The parallel which Foxe drew between his martyrological endeavor and that of Eusebius was a conscious element of his effort to craft a link between the martyrs of the Early Church, and those of the late medieval and early modern period. He invoked “such godly martyrs as suffered before your reign for the like testimony of Christ and his truth.”22 Foxe openly asserted that both his martyrs and Eusebius’ suffered for the same righteous cause. Continuing, Foxe justified his conflation of two eras of martyrs into one body of the faithful: “For if then such care was in searching and setting forth the doings and Acts of Christ’s faithful servants, suffering for his name in the primitive time of the Church: why should they now be more neglected of us in the latter church, such as gave their blood in the same cause and like quarrel? For what should we say? Is not the name of Christ as precious now, as then? Were not the torments as great? Is not the cause all one?”23 The first in John Foxe’s lineage of later martyrs was , who translated the Latin Vulgate of the Bible into English in the fourteenth century. Foxe, however, did not immediately transition from his Eusebian parallelism to the accounts of his martyrs.24 Since Christian concepts of martyrdom, both Protestant and Catholic, invariably revolve around the Augustinian credo non poena sed causa (not the death, but the cause, makes the martyr), Foxe launched the main text of his massive work with a systematic repudiation of Catholicism as a cause for which to die.25 His chosen method of accomplishing this intellectual sabotage was by devoting over forty pages of his text to discrediting . To an English audience, if not to most of Europe, Becket was the most renowned martyr for the cause of the Roman Catholic claim to be the church universal.26

21 Ibid 22Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Preface, 0007 23 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Preface, 0007 – 0008 24Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Part 2, 85 25Suzannah Monta. Martyrdom and Literature in Early Modern England. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 5 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Part 1, 1 – 46 26 Foxe, Acts and Monuments. Ed. 1563, Part 1, 46 – 85

15 Becket, murdered for staunchly upholding the supremacy of the Church over King Henry II on multiple points regarding the rights of the Church, became emblematic of the far-reaching claims of papal authority.27 If Becket was a true martyr, then through the martyrological discourse his death strongly testified to the legitimacy of the Church of Rome. Arguing that Becket was a false martyr was therefore the perfect way for Foxe to launch his own use of martyrdom to legitimize the Protestant creed: he would tear down his opponent’s martyrological argument before he constructed his own. Both the polemic against Catholicism, and that against Becket, follow expected Protestant objections to the Roman Catholic Church’s ecclesiastical abuses and temporal power, but are important to note for their contribution to the overall structure and design of the archetypal Protestant martyrological text. In addition to its polemical purpose, Foxe saw his work as a guide to assist the faithful in finding assurance of their election to salvation. Writing to a predominantly Calvinistic audience in Elizabethan England, Foxe knew that his readers would be eager to prove to themselves that they were indeed among the chosen, the elect who were ordained by God to receive salvation, and not among the reprobate who were ordained to be condemned. Foxe’s accounts of persons for whom faith was so potent as to lead them to choose death rather than to renounce their beliefs, and who chose to “‘certify’ their beliefs with their deaths” could not help but stir the reflective Calvinist to ask if they had a similar commitment to Christ.28 Foxe intended his readers to have such a devotional reaction to and use for his work. Borrowing the language of one “M. Bradford, Holy Martyr” he advocated that “whosoever desireth to be assured that he is one of the elect... but let him descend into himself, and there search his faith in Christ…which if he find in him not feigned by the working of God’s holy spirit accordingly: thereupon let him stay, and so wrap himself wholly both body and soul under God’s general promise, and cumber his head with no further speculations.”29 For those who attempted this self-reflection and did not find satisfactory evidence of their faith, John Foxe admonished them in his marginalia that “if ye feel not this faith, then know that predestination is too high a matter for you to be disputers of until you have been better scholars in the school house of repentance and justification.”30 In other words, if reflection on the martyrs failed to give certainty of election, it was the reader’s shortcoming and not the martyrs’ nor Foxe’s.

27 Mike Ibeji. “Becket, the Church and Henry II.” Last modified February 17, 2011 Accessed June 13, 2011. 28 Monta, Martyrdom and Literature, 19 29Foxe. Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1583, Book 11, 1,658 30Foxe. Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1583, Book 11, 1,657 Monta, Martyrdom and Literature, 19 – 20

16 Foxe’s account of the martyrs he claimed for Protestant beliefs proceeded chronologically, with martyrs organized into periods of persecution. Each martyr was given a narrative history, richly composed with exhaustive supporting detail. Individual martyrs’ accounts often are several pages in length. Brevity was nowhere Foxe's object. Rather, the author presented a volume of overwhelming size, scope and depth. Longer than the Bible itself in any contemporary edition, the entire text of Acts and Monuments is over 1,770 pages in the 1563 first English edition, and over 2,150 pages in the 1583 edition.31 Indeed so massive was the tome that in his concluding paragraph Foxe, entreating his reader to bear with any errors or (rather inconceivable) omissions, asked him to “imput[e] the fault rather to the laborious travail in the many-fold matters herein contained, then to any slackness of our good will herein employed: but as thou see the work to be great, so consider again how hard it is for no faults to escape.”32 The archetypal Protestant martyrology, and almost ten times the average size of subsequent martyrologies, Foxe’s Acts and Monuments was also a nearly insurmountable technical achievement in terms of its comprehensiveness in detail and the thorough-going rhetorical passages elucidating the Protestant repudiation of Catholicism and its alleged martyrs. It was a standard not to be exceeded—or even attempted—by any subsequent Protestant martyrologist writing in the Anglophone tradition. Regardless of the titanic achievement of Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, however, other authors were not deterred from producing their own Protestant martyrologies. In writing martyrology in the wake of John Foxe, subsequent English authors altered the genre in some ways while continuing Foxe’s endeavor in others. With the apex of the genre having been achieved in one fell swoop, seventeenth- century martyrologists would need to find either a new angle on the genre, or a new readership, in order to find a niche in this market. One notable alteration, and the most readily apparent, was in the length of their compositions. Here it must be noted that while Foxe’s intentions were strictly spiritual in nature, the writers following him can be divided into two camps: one which retained Foxe’s use of martyrs to expound only on matters of religious faith and practice, and one which utilized the language and forms of martyrology but instead offered a political argument. These works stood as a cohesive corpus of writings distinct from the political martyrologies, which will be handled in a subsequent chapter.

31John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. “Transcriptions.” Humanities Research Institute. University of Sheffield. 32 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Part 5iii, 1,758

17 Part II -- persecution Attacked Whereas Foxe’s approach to writing a martyrology for Protestants was to produce an exhaustive compendium of all the lives and deaths that could be claimed for the Protestant cause, later martyrologists shed his attention to detail. The size of the documents which seventeenth century martyrologists produced falls into a very narrow range, averaging 250 pages. There were seven book- length martyrologies which followed the Foxean model of attending to spiritual concerns and making exclusively religious arguments, abstaining from commentary on contemporary domestic politics. These documents were, in chronological order: Clement Cotton’s Mirror of Martyrs (1613), Samuel Clarke’s A General Martyrology ( 1651), ’s Brachy-Martyrologia (1657), Robert Young’s Breviary of the Later Persecutions (1663), Samuel Clarke’s A Looking-Glass for Persecutors (1674), Jacob Bauthumley’s Brief Historical Relation of the Most Material passages and Persecutions of the Church of Christ (1676), and the anonymous Martyrologia Alphabetike (1677).These works generally ran between 140 and 239 pages in length. The only exception was Clarke’s 512 page work A General Martyrology which, while notably larger than the others of this period, was still shy of Foxe’s masterwork by between 1,200 to 1,600 pages. These seven works represent a distinct and cohesive body in the genre of martyrology, as they were all produced in the same roughly sixty-year window (1613 to 1677), addressed similar spiritual issues which would be familiar to the reader of Foxe, made no political arguments, and shared roughly the same size and internal structure. Further, they all addressed a particular audience: the Protestant reader who either could not afford or had not the leisure to read the immense Acts and Monuments. Nearly all of these books reference John Foxe’s volume in their preface or title, and admitted that they relied heavily on his work for their material. It is common to see phrases such as “collected out of the Acts and Monuments of the Church, written by Mr. Foxe,” or “extracted out of Foxe's Acts and Monuments of the Church” or “collected out of the Ecclesiastical history and [Foxe’s] Book of Martyrs” in the very titles of these later works, or in their prefatory remarks.33 Their reliance on Foxe

33 Jacob Bauthumley, A brief historical relation of the most material passages and persecutions of the church of Christ, from the death of our Saviour, to the time of William the Conqueror collected out of the Acts and monuments of the church, written by Mr. Foxe and compiled in the three first books of the said Book of martyrs, written by the same author. Ed. 1676 Anonymous. Martyrologia alphabetikē, or, An alphabetical martyrology containing the tryals and dying expressions of many martyrs of note since Christ : extracted out of Foxe's Acts and monuments of the church : with an alphabetical list of God's judgements remarkably shown on many noted and cruel persecutors : together with an appendix of things pertinent to martyrology by N.T., M.A.T.C.C. [i.e. Master of Arts Trinity College Cambridge]. Ed. 1677 Robert Young. A breviary of the later persecutions of the professors of the gospel of Jesus Christ, under the Romish

18 for information as well as for ideology is readily apparent. The authors of these later works repeated many of his arguments concerning martyrdom, his polemical stance against Roman Catholicism, and his intended devotional use for the study of martyrs. The later writers also tended to extract the same martyrs from Foxe, and come to the same conclusion about them. The authors agreed that the subjects were all, indeed, legitimate Christian martyrs. They did indicate some disagreement as to the exact doctrines for which they were persecuted. At first glance, the major deviation from Foxe appears to be in the packaging and marketing of the material. Whereas Foxe’s book of martyrs became an institutional text, referenced and exalted by the Church of England, owning it was far beyond the financial grasp of the preponderance of the English population. Under more scrutiny, however, other similarities among the texts—and the authors— emerge that more dramatically set this body of writings apart from Foxe both physically and thematically. They shared almost unilaterally a rejection of intra-Protestant persecutions, and usually began their martyrological accounts in the early Christian era rather than the recent past as Foxe did. A further difference between Foxe and the later English martyrologists was in the chronological scope of the martyrs they recorded. Post-Foxean writers nearly always took their chronicles of Christian suffering all the way back to the Early Church, rather than beginning from the later Middle Ages and merely referencing the early martyrs as Foxe chose to do. Aside from the issue of proving the legitimacy of their own faith community, was for two reasons. The first of which is that by including Early Church martyrs, the writer could, without naming names, universalize on the subject of persecution of God’s true Church, and condemn the phenomenon and all those who perpetrated it. The second reason was that within reform-minded Protestants, there was a strong tendency toward Biblical primitivism. As noted by Theodore Bozeman, who looked back to the Early Church as the example for their doctrine and practice also “ascribed normative, exalted, mythic status to the biblical era from Creation to Apocalypse,” and “by virtue of such focus acknowledged little historical distance between their own and the primal age” of the Old Testament and the Early Church.34 Rather than mythologizing the age of the Apostles as greater or more spiritual, primitivist Puritans saw their own age as having equal potential and similar spiritual conditions. Consequently, present-day martyrs were no less heroic than Early Church martyrs. Faithfulness in the face of persecution was the same in every age, and its and antichristian prelates through Christendome from the time of John Wickliff in the year of God 1371, to the raign of Queen Elizabeth of England, and the reformation of religion in Scotland : and of the cruell persecution of the Christians under the Turkish empetors [sic] .../ collected out of the Ecclesiasticall history and Book of martyrs, by Mr. Robert Young. Ed. 1663 34 Theodore Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1988), 15

19 fallen heroes equally virtuous at all points in history. Post-Foxean martyrologists therefore tended to catalog their martyrs from the Early Church through the immediate past with no distinctions between early and later martyrs because they were placing their own community of faith’s sufferings in historical context as equal to and continuing the tradition of martyrdom in the Apostolic age. The first of the book-length martyrology to see production after Foxe was Clement Cotton’s Mirror of Martyrs, the Foxean character of which is immediately evident within the title. The full title of Cotton’s foray into martyrology is as follows: “The mirror of martyrs in a short view lively expressing the force of their faith, the fervency of their love, the wisdom of their sayings, the patience of their sufferings, etc. : with their prayers and preparation for their last farewell : whereunto is added two godly letters written by M. Bradford, full of sweet consolation for such as are afflicted in conscience.”35 Emblazoned on the title page was the advice to readers to use this work was to sooth the anxious Calvinist’s conscience. Just as Foxe, Cotton hoped to give assurance of election. Cotton went beyond Foxe, however, in his directness. Rather than embedding the explication of how precisely martyrs may aid in a self-examination of one’s spiritual status (which in Foxe is buried on page 1,657 and following), Cotton listed in plain sight on his title page the precise attributes of the martyrs. Readers could compare “the force of their faith, the fervency of their love, the wisdom of their sayings, the patience of their sufferings.” That Cotton delved into Foxe for this material is evident in his repetition of “two godly letters written by M. Bradford,” for it is precisely that author’s letters that Foxe uses to explicate his own passage on assurance. Mirror of Martyrs was, after all, intended to be a “short view,” of the martyrs, “lively expressing” their exemplary attributes.36 Cotton’s title implied that Foxe’s book was neither short nor lively, hence opening a market for his reiteration of the same material. Cotton clearly delineated the uses, audience, and limitations of his work in his early paragraphs. Addressing himself to the “Dear Christian Reader, who either wantest leisure to read, or ability to buy that rich and plentiful storehouse of story, doctrine, and comfort, the Acts and Monuments…and yet knowing th’incomparable worth of the things contained therein,” he presented to such a person “some of that precious store for thy present use.”37 He noted that “howsoever in regard of the smallness, it

35 Clement Cotton, The mirror of martyrs in a short vieuu lively expressing the force of their faith, the feruency of their loue, the wisedome of their sayings, the patience of their suffrings, etc. : with their prayers and preparation for their last farevvell : whereunto is added two godly letters written by M. Bradford, full of sweet consolation for such as are afflicted in conscience. Ed. 1613 36Ibid. 37 Cotton, Mirror of Martyrs, Ed. 1613, iii – iv

20 cannot show thee all; yet mayest thou here behold the choice of many memorable things.”38 He then restated its purpose to “yield thee sound comfort.”39 Intriguingly, Cotton also emulated Foxe’s choice to associate himself with the example of Eusebius in order to seek the patronage and protection of a sympathetic magnate. In his opening passages, Cotton dedicated his book to Elizabeth—not the queen, who in 1613 had been dead a decade, but to the princess: King James VI’s daughter, of whom he declared that “your Grace shall walk in her Royall steps, who (though dead, yet now seems to live in you) by her sacred hands did first consecrate the larger volume, whence this Epitome is extracted, to the use of the Church and people of God,” the “larger volume” of course being the Acts and Monuments.40 He indicated in his request for protection that he feared that if it were to be published “without the Patronage and protection of some person of Eminency in the said Church” then both his work and the testimony of the martyrs contained “might be the less esteemed of the good, or…vilified of the bad,” which would then also have exposed himself to criticism or worse.41 Cotton’s dedication of the work to Princess Elizabeth is significant in that it further demonstrates the similarity between how Cotton sees his position and authority as a writer of martyrology, and how Foxe saw himself and his work. Both men understood their position to be tenuous —vulnerable to rebuttal, or even retribution from zealous controversialists, Catholic and Protestant, both within and without the realm of England. Thus, Cotton and Foxe alike presented their work (and by extension, themselves as the authors) to people of power and royal blood, seeking their backing. In addition to sharing very similar assessments of their own needs as writers, Cotton and Foxe shared an understanding of their readers’ needs as Christians, which was that gaining certainty of one’s election was a main concern and drive behind contemporary Protestant English spirituality. The choice of Princess Elizabeth also paralleled Foxe’s own dedication of his Acts and Monuments in the perceived role of the princess in the Protestant world. Foxe saw his queen as the successor to Constantine, the defender of true Christianity. Likewise, Princess Elizabeth, on her marriage to the Protestant Frederick V of the Palatine electorate was hailed as a harbinger of the victory of Protestantism over Roman Catholicism forever.42 In fact, her marriage was a calculated move—“part of a

38 Ibid. 39Ibid. 40Cotton, Mirror of Martyrs, Ed. 1613, xiv – xv 41Ibid. 42 Ronald G. Asch, ‘Elizabeth, Princess (1596–1662)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/8638, accessed 12 Aug 2011]

21 wider alliance concluded in the spring of 1612 between England and the protestant union, an association of German princes and free cities under the leadership of the Palatinate.”43 That Cotton would look to her as the appropriate figure to whom he would dedicate his martyrology was only natural, given his heritage from Foxe. Although both Foxe and Cotton spoke to this issue of consoling the conscience, Cotton’s approach radically diverged from that of Foxe. Cotton did not present a narrative, and did not attempt to relate the life story of each martyr, their sufferings, or the nature of their deaths. At first glance, this omission might seem to disqualify his work from even being a martyrology. The method he employed was entirely in keeping with the Foxean motive to assuage consciences. Cotton did not attempt a comprehensive record, but only purported to be a “Mirror,” to reflect the readers own spiritual attributes reflected in those of the martyrs. The implication was that, because the martyrs’ elect status was unquestioned, being like them could offer assurance of election. For this reason, and because Cotton had only the goal of providing “sweet consolation for such as are afflicted in conscience,” he side stepped lengthy accounts of the prosecution, torture and execution of the martyrs. Instead he focused entirely on portraying their character and spiritual virtues.44 Cotton’s method of relaying the kernel of the martyrs’ faith, love, wisdom and patience was unique among martyrologists. His writing was very terse and perfunctory. In addition, Cotton began each martyr’s entry at the end of their life story, rather than at the beginning as Foxe had done. For instance, Cotton’s inclusion of Bishop Hooper began with “the Godly Bishop Hooper being brought unto the place where he should suffer.”45 Mirror of Martyrs described that he rejected an offer of , choosing a righteous death over recantation. In other words, Cotton depicted his faith, wisdom, and other exemplary qualities, but without the background story of his arrest, trial or even the grounds of his martyrdom. In addition to this brief account of Hooper’s final hours, Cotton included two letters and a prayer to exposit the man’s devotion, constancy and emphasis on eternal reward rather than temporal security. Cotton’s entry for Bishop Ridley was of the same character. The first line of his account began: “Worthy Bishop Ridley going to his burning at Oxford…,” and then proceeded to recite his final words and describe his last moments.46 The only other entry for Ridley was a letter he wrote which, as with Hooper, illustrates his resigned acceptance of death and his resolute faith in approaching it meekly.47

43 Ibid. 44Cotton, Mirror of Martyrs, Ed. 1613, i 45Cotton, Mirror of Martyrs, Ed. 1613, 99 – 106, 127 – 130 46Cotton, Mirror of Martyrs, Ed. 1613, 7 – 8 47Cotton, Mirror of Martyrs, Ed. 1613, 16 – 17

22 Cotton’s martyrological entries for these two renowned martyrs of the Marian persecutions are wildly different than the coverage Foxe gave to them. Whereas in Cotton, the material on Hooper and Ridley combined occupied a total of 15 pages, the 1570 edition of Acts and Monuments held references to or accounts of Hooper alone on over 40 pages. The coverage increased for the 1583 edition to 60 pages (both up from the 1563 edition which had 19 pages on or including Hooper).48 Ridley appeared on a further 122 pages of the 1570 Acts and Monuments, and the same number in the 1583 edition, having started with 87 pages of the 1563 edition.49 This contrast arose not simply out of the difference in the scale of the two works. Foxe’s coverage of Hooper includes detailed narrations of the stages of his trial, his defense of the doctrines for which he was accused, his final words, his death-scene, letters he wrote while in prison, and much other material. Foxe exhaustively presented his entire story: trial, behavior and death. Cotton’s account honed in exclusively on material which expounds his constancy and devotion, not his story or doctrine.50 Bishop Ridley received even more thorough-going attention from Foxe, whereas in Cotton he had even less material than Hooper, and then again, only included to illustrate his virtues and not declaim his entire martyrdom experience. In sum, by not establishing the cause for his martyrs’ deaths, Cotton’s martyrology side stepped the issue raised by non poena sed causa. Instead his treatment stood as a purely devotional work which attempted to achieve the consolatory aspects of Foxe’s tome, but without the background development of each martyr. In that sense, Cotton’s Mirror of Martyrs may be understood as intentionally and explicitly dependent upon Acts and Monuments for the establishment its martyrs’ legitimacy. Simply put, Cotton’s martyrology offered an accessible and readily affordable crystallization of the devotional aspects of Acts and Monuments. A similar emphasis on repackaging for accessibility was repeated by Jacob Bauthumley’s much later work A Brief Historical Relation. Bauthumley opened his preface “To the Reader,” with a justification of his methodology, saying that “it is so common a thing in all historians for one man to build upon anothers foundation…that I need not apologize for myself, in what I have here collected out of that worthy author Mr. Fox, in his Martyrology.”51 Bauthumley went on to relate that he would also include martyrs from the “ten persecutions of the primitive times.”52 He commented that “pity it is that

48John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. “Search the Text.” Humanities Research Institute. University of Sheffield. 49John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. “Search the Text.” Humanities Research Institute. University of Sheffield 50John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. “Search the Text.” Humanities Research Institute. University of Sheffield. 51Jacob Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, v 52Jacob Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, vi

23 their names should be buried in oblivion,” since John Foxe did not cover the Early Church martyrs by name or individually, but only referenced Eusebius’ such work as his model.53 In his preface he stated that his source for these early martyrs, however, was not Eusebius, but the “large catalogue of sufferers” in the eleventh chapter of the Biblical book of Hebrews.54 Later in his text, however, he did in fact utilize and cite Eusebius’ text on the Martyrs of Palestine.55 His purpose in writing this martyrology was so that “some may be enlightened by it, who having never seen the great Book itself… nor able to purchase the grand book itself; but by the short view of this little Treatise, such men may inform themselves of what sufferings have ever been by some in all ages, whom God hath called out and made eminent, in the witnessing of his truth”.56 The “great book” was Foxe, offering further testimony to its acknowledged centrality in this early period of English martyr writings. Bauthumley’s martyrology, then, explicated the element of Foxe’s work which was testimonial in nature: reciting the sufferings of martyrs faithful to their conscience as evidence of the truth of Protestant beliefs. His writing style bears out such a conclusion, as it did not lay stress on the elements of Christian character (faith, love, wisdom and patience) which Cotton so emphasized. His book did, however, provide a concise, continuous narrative of afflicted and afflicters, noting both the trials of the martyrs and also the ill fates that came to many of their persecutors. Bauthumley cited sufferings coming to persecutors as God’s divine retribution on those who assailed the true church. Of “chief instrument of the persecution” Galerius, Bauthumley wrote that he “fell into such a strange sickness, having such a sore risen in the bottom of his belly, which consumed his privy members, and swarmed with lice and filth, not curable by physic or surgery, confessing it happened to him for his cruelty to the Christians” 57 Relishing the details, he continued that Galerius eventually became “so noisome to himself, by his stench, that he slew himself.”58 Bauthumley used such accounts of divine wrath as support for his thesis that these martyrs he recorded died for the true faith. As with Foxe, Bauthumley wrote against Roman Catholicism, of which he said “their religion is rebellion, their faith, faction; and their practice nothing but murdering of souls and bodies.”59 Jacob Bauthumley’s extraction from Foxe and Eusebius, then, had a different emphasis than did Cotton’s derivation of Foxe. Bauthumley was attempting to elicit not a devotional usage for his book,

53Ibid 54Ibid 55Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, 8, 25, 37, 53 – 54 56Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, vi 57Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, 6 58Ibid 59Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, viii

24 but a hardening of hearts and minds against those who persecuted the faithful. His work was intended not only to lead one to admire the martyr, but also to despise the persecutor. His emphasis was perhaps more on the latter rather than the former. Certainly A Brief Historical Relation was not intended to be a “mirror” for Calvinist consciences, as was Cotton’s martyrology. While the assertions Bauthumley made about martyrs’ characteristics and testimony were quite mainstream and Foxean, he placed a new emphasis on anti-persecution in general. Foxe’s book repudiated Catholicism, to be sure, as did Bauthumley’s. Foxe did not treat ancient Roman and pagan persecution of Christians, and therefore did not address persecution as a phenomenon. Cotton ignored early-church martyrs, and so said nothing of Roman persecutions. In essence, then, it can be argued that while Foxe condemned Roman Catholicism because it persecuted the true faith, Bauthumley condemned persecution itself. That shift in attention would be of critical importance for the work of post-Foxean martyrologists. That Bauthumley’s martyrology condemned persecution itself as evil is especially intriguing when viewed in light of his biography. Both Jacob and his father William Bauthumley were excommunicated by the Church of England on charges of being Ranters—William in 1619, Jacob in 1634.60 Later, Jacob fared no better under the commonwealth government of 1650, which ordered his tongue bored through with a hot iron as punishment for blasphemy. His publication about his concept of God, entitled The Light and Dark Sides of God, was “ordered to be burnt.” Later in life, in 1667, he was publicly humiliated before his church’s congregation for failing to receive communion.61 After all these trials in his personal life Jacob Bauthumley sat down to write his martyrology. While an extreme case, he was not alone in experiencing persecution for his religious beliefs. Other martyrologists also endured some level of official harassment for their beliefs. Those who had done so tended to take the long view of persecution by including early-church martyrs in their martyrologies. Samuel Clarke’s martyrology also focused on the history of the phenomenon of persecution, not the martyrs themselves as individual Christians. His 1651 work was entitled A Generall Martyrologie Containing a Collection of All the Greatest Persecutions Which Have Befallen the Church of Christ from the Creation to Our Present Times.62 Clarke stated that in writing his martyrology, he intended that “the reading of this history will manifest what wonderful constancy and patience the saints have shewed in their greatest sufferings: what hath been the power of Almighty God in their support: and what

60Nigel Smith, ‘Bothumley, Jacob (1613–1692)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37163, accessed 22 Feb 2011] 61Ibid 62Samuel Clarke. A generall martyrologie containing a collection of all the greatest persecutions which have befallen the church of Christ from the creation to our present times, 1651

25 miserable ends many of their persecutors have come to.”63 His interest in the “miserable ends” of persecutors anticipated Bauthumley’s similar concern. Publishing in 1651, Clarke stated that he hoped his work would not be unappreciated, “nor be judged unseasonable, considering the times wherein we live: for if the same sins abound amongst us in these days, which have been the forerunners of persecutions formerly; we have cause to fear the worst, and to prepare for it; forewarned, forearmed.”64 Expressing a view held in common with Foxe, Clarke identified in his preface “To the Christian Reader” the “certain and infallible mark of the true Church of Christ,” which he said was “to be hated and persecuted by the Devil and his instruments.”65 Clarke somewhat extended Foxe’s assertion that suffering and martyrdom marks the true church, in that he said “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution.”66 If martyrdom marked the true faith but all godly persons must suffer, then the difference (for Clarke?) must be in the degree of suffering and how widespread it was amongst the members of a faith community. Certainly the entire true church could not experience literal martyrdom, or there would be no-one left. But Christians could experience some lesser degree of suffering, which, Clarke argued, was evidence of true faith. In fact, Clarke claimed that in the absence of any and all suffering, the church becomes stagnant. He noted, “one thing is very remarkable in this history, that usually before any great persecution befell the Church…there was some great decay of zeal, and of the power of godliness.”67 In order to correct laxity “God lets loose wicked persecutors upon his own children…only to bring them in unto him; and then, he not only restrains their rage, but casts the rod into the fire.”68 Completing his modification of Foxe’s focus only on Christians who actually died, Clarke appended biographies of living, contemporary ministers whom he thought “not to be heterogeniall to the rest of the work; for though they were not martyrs, yet may they well be styled confessors, in regard of the great persecution and sufferings.”69 Clarke's choice was clearly at odds with Foxe’s intent to provide a memorial to the deceased faithful: their “Acts and Monuments”, in the real sense of a memorial. This shift away from suffering unto death, to suffering in any degree, is important, for it allowed Clarke to extend the argument against persecution into his present time. The Church of England might not have burned and beheaded ministers who opposed the Laudian reforms of the 1630s, but it

63Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iv 64Ibid 65Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, i 66Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iii 67Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, ii 68Ibid 69Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iv

26 certainly practiced some degree of official sanction against those who opposed the state church. Clark, like Bauthumley, was himself in a position to be familiar with the disciplining rod of the Church for, a minister in the church, he endured harassment almost his entire professional life, on account of his opposition to some church practices.70 After being “troubled by the local ecclesiastical authorities” in Cheshire “for refusing to wear the surplice and omitting the ceremonies…he moved to a lectureship in ,” where he was soon in trouble once again with the local bishop.71 From there, he moved to Warwick, where he spent several years despite being harassed, and complained of to the bishop of Worcester. Perhaps even more formative to his mentality and work on persecution, Clarke “witnessed the sufferings following the battle of Edgehill” during the English Civil War “and shortly afterwards left war-torn for the safety of London,” where he had another ecclesiastical appointment. Increased doctrinal rigidity and polarization in the Restoration spelled more trouble for Clarke’s career. After the conclusion of the second civil war, Clarke returned to the interior of Alcester, very near to his previous tenures in Coventry and Warwick. On arrival he was “alarmed by the spread of sectarianism among his godly parishioners and decided to stay in the capital.” If he found rest in the 1650s, he was soon subjected to harassment again as a result of the shift back to an established Church of England. Ultimately, in 1662, Clarke was ejected from his living there also, after he refused to yield to the Act of Uniformity. It was between his return to Alcester, and his ejection from his final clerical position that Clarke wrote his martyrology of persecutions. Ann Hughes, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, noted that because “he was not licensed to minister to any congregation” after his ejection, Clarke instead “concentrated on literary means of promoting his religious beliefs, as a prolific and admittedly derivative author or compiler.”72 Her observation is borne out by the commentary and emphatic focus on suffering as evidence of true faith in his martyrology. Stylistically, Clarke, like Bauthumley, organized his work chronologically, according to the period of persecution. A General martyrology strongly emphasizes accessibility. Before the actual text begins, Clarke has first an index of the names of all the martyrs, followed by an index of the various persecutions.73 This scheme represented vast improvement over the accessibility of Foxe, whose work was quite difficult to navigate. Foxe’s apparatus did not include an index worth the name, so, finding particular people or persecutions was extremely difficult. Foxe apparently did not prioritize ease of

70Ann Hughes, ‘Clarke, Samuel (1599–1682)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2007 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5528, accessed 22 Feb 2011] 71Ibid 72Ibid 73Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, viii – xiv

27 reading. For the ten persecutions of the Early Church, Clarke’s writing was in the style of a narrative history of each persecution, and was not a collection of martyrs’ biographies. Like Jacob Bauthumley’s later martyrology, Clarke’s work was organized by the chronological period of martyrdom. He made a point, however, to note who was the persecutor in each case—not merely the time, or sequence of the persecutions, but the perpetrated each. For instance, the first ten persecutions were under the heading: “The Persecution of the Church under the Heathen Roman Emperors.”74 Subsequent narrative segments were titled in the manner: “The Persecution of the Church under the Arian Heretics,” and “The Persecution by the Donatists” and of course “The Persecution of the Church under the Papacy.”75 Such a scheme boldly placed emphasis on the persecutors themselves. In his preface, Clarke addressed the reader in verse, stating his intention to achieve a faster reading experience: “Away long-winded volumes, times disease;/This author doth our fancies better please./ Large books are endless; but ‘tis his design/ T’enclose great volumes in his single line.”76 Throughout his martyrology, then, Clarke maintained the brevity and quick pace characteristic of the post-Foxean writers. Each martyr only received a very brief biographical sketch within the narrative of the episodes of persecution. Occasionally, Clarke included a longer entry on one prominent martyr, such as “The Life of Doctor Aegidio,” or “The Life of Doctor Constantino,” but even these were abbreviated, and only consumed approximately 2 to 6 pages per person.77 Such brief accounts constituted a dramatic difference when compared to the number of pages Foxe gave to discussions of his prominent martyrs Hooper and Ridley. Clarke was careful to note the sources from which he derived his accounts. During his narration of the Early Church persecutions, Clarke mentioned that he was using such sources as the writings of Josephus and Socrates Scholasticus, the New Testament, the Life of Nero Caesar, and of course, Eusebius, among others.78 He also acknowledged drawing upon Foxe’s Acts and Monuments.79 This repackaging of others’ work was another key attribute of the post-Foxean Anglophone martyrologists of the seventeenth century. No compelling evidence indicates that Clarke did any original research, except perhaps for his appendix on persecuted ministers contemporary with—and biographically similar to— himself. In this Clarke departed from the emerging pattern of martyrologists concerned with persecution, who also extended their chronological scope beyond Foxe and into the Early Church or

74Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 31 75Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 87, 90, 103 76Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, vi 77Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 257 – 261 78Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 7, 26, 31, 33, 66, 82, 87 79Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 33

28 even Old Testament times. Nearly all writers of post-Foxean martyrology were mere borrowers from Foxe and Eusebius. That Clarke expended effort to extend the documented sufferings to his own time, including the living among his sufferers (although he is careful not to call them “martyrs,” but “Confessors”), is a further, important indication of the shift of focus away from using martyrology to consider exclusively those who died. 80 Clarke’s move from documenting literal martyrdom to non-fatal forms of persecution contributed to an alteration of the martyrological discourse in the seventeenth century. Sufferers who did not die could be used rhetorically in the same way as the martyrs who did. One further piece of evidence of Clarke’s shift of attention away from Foxe’s imperatives, toward a condemnation of persecution in general, is his 1674 work A Looking-Glass for Persecutors.81 The title should sound familiar to the student of martyrdom, being a close paraphrase of Cotton’s The Mirror of Martyrs. This adaptation deftly illustrates Clarke’s intentional shift in material and emphases as opposed to Foxe and his protégé Cotton. This book is a reversed-martyrology. It was not written to present the sufferings, endurance or testimony of the martyrs, nor does it dwell on their spiritual qualities nor provide a documentary history of the church’s verification by affliction. Rather, the Looking-Glass for Persecutors is organized by the perpetrators of violence against the righteous, and discusses the persecutors as the actors, rather than discussing the martyrs as the acted-upon. In every sense, then, Clarke reversed the martyrology’s traditional writing conventions. For example, Clarke’s entries on persecutors began with such language as: “Saul the first King of Israel was a cruel persecutor of David,” and “King Ahab persecuted the prophet ,” and “Manasseh persecuted the ancient and noble prophet ,” thereby placing the locus of action upon the persecutor, as the subject of the sentence, rather than on the martyr.82 Clarke’s attention throughout the book was twofold: first, he documented what a persecutor did as an active party harming against the faithful, and then he described what God did to the persecutors in recompense. In a parallelism, but reversal of the structure of his General Martyrology, Clarke organized his Looking-Glass around the acts of God, narrated by period of persecution. He arranged the material into such units as “God’s Judgments on Persecutors during the Ten Primitive Persecutions under the Heathen Emperors,” and “God’s Judgments upon Persecuting Heretics” and “God’s Judgments upon Popish Persecutors.”83 Again, as with Jacob Bauthumley’s A Brief Historical Relation, and Clarke’s earlier

80Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iv 81Samuel Clarke. A looking-glass for persecutors containing multitudes of examples of God's severe, but righteous judgments, upon bloody and merciless haters of His children in all times, from the beginning of the world to this present age : collected out of the sacred Scriptures, and other ecclesiastical writers, both ancient and modern. 1674 82Clarke, A Looking-Glass for Persecutors, 1674, 6 – 8 83Clarke, A Looking-Glass for Persecutors, 1674, 22, 32, 39

29 General Martyrology, this work included martyrs—and sufferers—dating back to Roman and even Old Testament Biblical times. The emphasis here, however, was on the persecutor and God’s wrath against them, rather than on the persecuted, and the blessedness, exemplariness, or usefulness of such. This new focus represented a major reinvention of the discourse of religious Martyrology. Nicholas Billingsley joined the company of martyrologists who undertook to shift the focus away from the martyrs individually and toward persecution itself and those who perpetrated it was joined by Nicholas Billingsley. Despite a unique design, his Brachy-Martyrologia, or, A Breviary of All the Greatest Persecutions Which Have Befallen the Saints and People of God from the Creation to Our Present Times was somewhat predictable by the time it appeared in 1657.84 As with Cotton, Bauthumley, and Clarke, the martyrologist of the post-Foxean model wrote a much-condensed, more highly organized and accessible text. Such books always contained some prefatory remark which identified and addressed an audience that needs a faster-reading, more affordable martyrology. Billingsley was no exception, as his preface, stated that the reader “hast here presented to thy view, the Book of Martyrs in a little room; which is already extant, though in a larger extent.” 85Billingsley then elaborated on his hoped-for audience: If the tyranny of thine affairs are so imperious, or the weakness of thy purse so injurious, as to impede thy perusal of the History of the Church (which is absolutely the best (save one) in the Christian World,) either in the voluminous works of the laborious (now with God) Mr. Fox; or in the concise collections of that Reverend divine and famous martyrologist (still with us) Mr. Clark (out of whose garden I have gathered this posie of flowers: ) thou may’st (if it please thee) accept of this breviary, which will not cost much money in the buying, and but a little time in the reading.86

Billingsley, in other ways quite predictable, offered a major twist when he wrote the entire body of his work in metered, rhyming verse. All 213 pages of it form one continuous, titanic poem totaling over 50,000 words. True to his word, however, he very much copied his material straight from Samuel Clarke’s 1651 General Martyrology.87 He also mimicked the latter’s organization, as well as his emphasis on persecution and divine retribution. Billingsley’s dependence on Clarke as the diagram and wellspring of his work is evident in that he organized his poem into periods of persecution—precisely the same 84Nicholas Billingsley, Brachy-martyrologia, or, A breviary of all the greatest persecutions which have befallen the saints and people of God from the creation to our present times. 1657 85Billingsley, Brachy-Martyrologia, 1657, viii 86Ibid 87 Billingsley, Brachy-Martyrologia, 1657, 208

30 periods and headings which Samuel Clarke had used, such as the “Ten Primitive Persecutions” of the church by the “Heathen Roman Emperors,” reproduced virtually word-for-word and in the same order.88 It appears that Billingsley kept Clarke’s headings, but filled each section with poetical paraphrase of precisely the same material Clarke discussed in prose. He, in effect, produced a poetical version of Clarke, his information and organization directly modeled on Clarke’s book. The similarity extended further. Billingsley also had original passages, in which he did not follow the structure of Clarke, but did emulate Clarke's argument against persecution and those who practice it. These passages show that Billingsley was not a mere mimic or plagiarist, but was intellectually in agreement with Clarke’s philosophical position, and of his own volition promulgated his own iteration of Clarke’s sentiment against the practice of religious persecution. For instance, Billingsley concluded his poem with a segment under the heading “God’s Judgments upon the Persecutors of His Church and Children,” a passage which did not appear anywhere in Clarke’s General Martyrology.89 While this portion of his composition was in keeping with the spirit of Clarke’s work A Looking-Glass for Persecutors, Billingsley’s work preceded the publication of A Looking-Glass by some seventeen years. Therefore, it could not have been a duplication of that work, but instead must represent agreement between the two men that persecution is wrong. Billingsley seems to have first mimicked and then anticipated Clarke's views in the concluding passages of Brachy-Martyrologia in an original composition on the theme which Clarke would later take up again to similar effect. The final portion of Billingsley’s martyrology demonstrated that he wrote against persecution on his own initiative. Here Billingsley described the ill fates which many persecutors came to, and finally ended his work with the following epigraph derived from two Scripture verses ( 31:3, and 2 Thessalonians 1:6 – 7): “Is it not destruction to the wicked, and strange judgments to the workers of iniquity?” and “It’s a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you that are troubled, rest with us.”90 Clearly, Billingsley mined Scripture for verses appropriate to his rhetorical objectives. Without textual evidence showing that Billingsley argued against persecution of his own initiative, it would be possible to wrongly conclude that his rejection of persecution was the result of simply adapting Clarke into verse form. If that were the case, the anti-persecution thesis would not have been an intentional effort and choice on the part of a deliberate author. What is evident from the text, however, is that his argument was not an artifact left over from using Clarke as a source, but was intentional. Billingsley's original contribution to the discourse against persecution adds to the

88Billingsley, Brachy-Martyrologia, 1657, 22 – 65 89Billingsley, Brachy-Martyrologia, 1657, 208 90Billingsley, Brachy-Martyrologia, 1657, 213

31 pattern of martyrologists who wrote against that phenomenon. Perhaps Billingsley, predisposed to argue against persecution, chose to base his poetic construction on the model and framework of Clarke for the very reason that Clarke was anti-persecution. With the painstaking intentionality demonstrated in the final passages of Brachy-Martyrologia, that is the only logical conclusion. The Church of England had disciplined Nicholas Billingsley, like Clarke and Bauthumley, for his failure to conform to its doctrines and practices.91 A Presbyterian minister, his clerical practice was at variance with the recently restored Church’s prescriptions. Like others of his ilk, including Clarke, he was expelled from his living in 1662.92 Also as in Clarke and Bauthumley, his martyrology went beyond Foxe’s martyrs of only the recent centuries, beginning with Wycliffe.93 This greater chronological scope and the variety of persecuting parties it encompassed allowed Billingsley to aim his rhetoric against persecution in general, rather than simply indicting that of the Roman Catholic Church, as was Foxe’s intent. A longer-term perspective on martyrology, then, after Foxe and Cotton in order to argue against persecution in general, was a key characteristic of the post-Foxean religious martyrology. Written anonymously, the final major anti-persecution martyrology produced in this boom period of martyrological writing bears out the general observations made thus far of the religious martyrologies of the seventeenth century, albeit with a few surprises. Entitled Martyrologia Alphabetike, and composed by “N.T.,” who post-scripted his initials with “M.A.T.C.C” (Master of Arts, Trinity College Cambridge), the work was published in 1677 and spanned 239 pages.94 The author explained its brevity in comparison to Foxe by stating that “many who probably would read those greater volumes, either cannot acquire them being scarce, or cannot purchase them being dear, or perhaps have not time to peruse them being great,” and so the author offered his extractions out of Foxe, for the easier consumption of a less well-heeled and leisurely audience.95 The author of the Alphabetical Martyrology prefaced the text of his work with a flourish of familiar rhetoric, citing that “So great an enmity hath Satan evidenced, ever since his own apostasy, against mankind, that he must be conceded to have been very sedulous and vigilant in all ages to destroy souls, on while alluring them to sin against God….or else by deterring them from adhering to

91Sharon Achinstein, ‘Billingsley, Nicholas (bap. 1633, d. 1709)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2396, accessed 23 Feb 2011] 92Ibid 93Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Part 2, 85 94Martyrologia alphabetikē, or, An alphabetical martyrology containing the tryals and dying expressions of many martyrs of note since Christ : extracted out of Foxe's Acts and monuments of the church : with an alphabetical list of God's judgements remarkably shown on many noted and cruel persecutors : together with an appendix of things pertinent to martyrology by N.T., M.A.T.C.C. [i.e. Master of Arts Trinity College Cambridge, 1677 95Ibid

32 God…by his assaults and persecutions, the verity of which hath been continuedly evidenced in the successive ages of God’s Church.”96

In this passage, N.T. asserted that faithful, true Christians are afflicted and persecuted in every age of the world because Satan uses persecution to dissuade humans from serving God. Persecution was not a new phenomenon, but was universal and expected. So typical was it for the faithful to be persecuted, in the eyes of the author, that N.T. stated that “few of Christ's Apostles or Followers have escaped tribulation.”97 Evidence for his assertion would be found both in Scriptures and in his own pages.”98 The author indicated his intention to prove the universality of persecution of the faithful by means of his martyrological documentation of sufferings down through the ages. This assertion was very similar to what Clarke had said in his 1651 General Martyrology about suffering being common to most, if not virtually all, of Christ’s true followers.99 Like Clarke, Bauthumley, and Billingsley, the author known as N.T. chose to employ the long- term view of martyrs, including accounts all the way back to just after Christ. Furthermore, N.T. announced in his preface that the first way in which his book sought to be “serviceable to the Church of God” was by “demonstrating the verity of our religion, and the great and sure foundation of our faith, sealed by the blood of many thousand martyrs, who have as witnesses thereof, attested the verity of their professions by their deaths.”100 By the complex of statements in his preface, N.T. asserted that persecution follows the faithful, that it does so because it is always the work of the Devil (thereby insinuating that persecution is intrinsically an act of evil), and that persecution is a proof of orthodoxy. Illustrating the nature of his audience's demand for martyrology, the author acknowledged that “the chief things in these volumes desired by the vulgar (whose instruction is chiefly designed hereby) is the lives and deaths, the constancy and comforts of the martyrs, which here are briefly contained as to the most remarkable martyrs ever since Christ’s time.”101 Referring to the devotional use of martyrs’ stories, he condescendingly attributed this desire to “the vulgar.”102 While admitting that for many that usage was of primary interest, the author raised an alternate purpose for his book. He suggested that “if we consider that while we are in the world we must expect troubles, it is no small prudence to prepare

96N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, ii 97N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, iii 98Ibid 99Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iii 100N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, iii 101N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, vii 102Ibid

33 for it,” by reading his history of martyrdom.103 As with his argument on the universality of suffering for the faithful, N.T. was again advancing a position taken up by Clarke, perhaps the archetypal post-Foxean martyrologist, who said that: “if the same sins abound amongst us in these days, which have been the forerunners of persecutions formerly; we have cause to fear the worst, and to prepare for it; forewarned, forearmed.”104 Structurally, this text continued in the post-Foxean mold. The entries per martyr are brief, and to the point. N.T. gave no depth of biographical material unlike Cotton and Foxe, but did maintain a narrative. This martyrology’s structure took the post-Foxean credo of making the text accessible to its ultimate height: rather than employing extensive indexes or tables of contents, this entire martyrology is one alphabetized list of entries—a veritable annotated index. Each entry was headed by a letter of the alphabet (rather than a place or time of persecution), and each martyr was arranged in alphabetical order under each letter-heading. Within these individual accounts, N.T. –emulating Clarke and Bauthumley and Billingsley—paid some attention to the bad ends to which several persecutors eventually came. After relating the death of Damlip, he recorded that his persecutor, one Sir Ralph Ellerken “was soon after slain amongst others by the French, and his enemies cutting off his privy members, cut his heart out of his body; which cruelty they did to none other of the company, and may be looked on as a just judgment of God on him.”105 The most remarkable evidence that N.T. was following the pattern of the other post-Foxean martyrologists is that after he exhausted all the letters of the alphabet for martyrs, he turned to persecutors, presenting “An Alphabetical List of God’s Judgments” on those who afflicted His followers.106 In this listing over fifty persecutors were named, and their judgments described in gory detail. Apart from Clarke’s Looking-Glass for Persecutors, this presents, out of all the martyrologies here considered, the most extensive and pointed argument that God judges those who persecute the faithful. Martyrologia Alphabetike has another surprise for the student of martyrology. The last martyrology to be written in the seventeenth century, N.T.'s was the first book not written by a Quaker to mention any Protestant denominations by name.107 Even before his prefatory material concerning the historical ubiquity of persecution, the author included an advertisement for “A Vindication of Oaths, and swearing in weighty cases, as lawful and useful under the Gospel: and the Quakers Opinion and Practice against Oaths and Oath-taking, proved to be unscriptural, and without any just reason; as also against 103Ibid 104Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iv 105N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, 53 106N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, 216 107No other book-length martyrologies were produced between 1677 and 1747 except reprints of earlier works

34 their own Principles.”108 This accusation could be taken to be an inclusion not of the author’s consent or knowledge, but only by the publisher, were it not for internal textual evidence that this criticism of Quaker beliefs was, indeed, the opinion of N.T. as well as of his publisher. N.T.'s repudiation of the Quakers also surfaced in his treatment of the Waldenses, whom he also named. Of them N.T. stated that they “were known by these marks, they would not swear, nor name the Devil; were true to their promise, and would not take an Oath, unless in judgment, or in making some solemn Covenant,” which was to say, they would not take an oath lightly, but were not utterly opposed to them as the Quakers were.109 In many works of martyrology in this period, the Waldenses were one of the favorite, most prominent exemplars of doctrinal purity, a testament for the faithful under affliction. By claiming that the Waldenses were in agreement with oath-taking in weighty matters, N.T. was using their authority to repudiate the position of the Quakers. Nowhere before in the genre of book-length Protestant martyrology had a particular Protestant group been attacked via the evidence of doctrines held by martyrs. Martyrology had been used to attack Catholicism, of course, and to eschew the persecution which one Protestant faith-community inflicted on another, but a doctrinal repudiation of one Protestant faith-community by another had never before been attempted in an Anglophone martyrology. Additional verification of the anti-Quaker content in this book came not from the author, but the publisher. After the “Alphabetical List of God’s Judgments” on persecutors followed a brief sketch of the primitive persecutions, and then a series of advertisement, which presents other works by the same publisher, all of which were open polemics against the Quakers.110 The prominently displayed anti- Quaker sentiments at the beginning and end of this very pointed statement on martyrdom and persecution highlight its place as a watershed text in the genre, and the closest thing to a bridge between the religious and the politicized martyrologies. The advertisements, while not part of N.T.'s text were not unconnected to his text. They reveal that N.T.’s publisher recognized the anti-Quaker bent in Martyrologia Alphabetike, and therefore targeted his market with advertisements for similar material. These advertisements not withstanding its significance to the discourse of martyrology, while this was the first instance of outright intra-Protestant polemic within Anglophone martyrology, it was not the earliest evidence of the divisions amongst English faith-communities entering into martyrological writing. That innovation was to be accomplished by Quaker martyrology, itself an entire sub-genre within post-Foxean martyrology.

108N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, i 109N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, 196 110N.T., Martyrologia Alphabetike, 1677, 240

35 Part IiI -- The Quaker Rendition The year 1661 saw the publication of a 32-page pamphlet martyrology by Ellis Hookes which, similar to the work of N.T., used the lives and deaths of martyrs to validate the beliefs of the author’s community of faith. The full title of The Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of the Apostles and the Spirit of the Marytrs is Arisen (see note) lay in plain sight the author’s theological argument, his branch of Christianity, and the material he would present to the reader.111 The title introduces several features of this martyrology. First, the Quaker author sought to convince the reader that there was a tradition of martyrdom for practices which were distinctly Quaker, which hailed all the way back to the time of Christ. In so doing, he employed the long-term view favored by authors who were persecuted for their own nonconformity and (likely because of that) were moved to write against persecution.112 And thirdly, Hookes derived his martyrs from Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, colloquially termed the “Book of Martyrs.” 113 Hookes did not merely defend his own community of belief against the accusations of others, but actively promulgated the beliefs of Quakerism. He opened his martyrology with an essay on the Biblical support for not swearing oaths, after which he invoked the writings of , , and , as well as John Wycliffe, who he purported denied the righteousness of taking oaths.114 He went beyond this defensive position, however, and quoted one John Florence as saying that “all such as did swear by their life or power, shall be damned, except they repent,” and that if one does swear, it will “venom your soul.”115 Writing in his own words, Hookes first quoted Christ as saying “swear not at all” (from the Gospel of Matthew 5:34) and then stated that “it is neither lawful, nor comely, nor safe to break the Law of Christ, which Law of Christ is the law of the Spirit of Life, the transgression of which is evil, and the penalty of which is condemnation.”116 Clearly, Hookes’ endeavor in this book was not at all to catalogue martyrs for devotional purposes, but rather to use them as the basis of a polemic designed to advance his community of faith. 111 Ellis Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, and the spirit of the Apostles and the spirit of the martyrs is arisen, which beareth testimony against swearing and oaths, for which the martyrs suffered in the time of the ten persecutions and some since, which we also, the people of God called Quakers, do suffer for, as many thousands have done, for keeping the commands of Christ who saith, swear not at all and also, here you may see such martyrs as could not put off their hat or bonnet to the , nor his legate, and as example of one martyr that could not give sureties, being innocent, so that you may see in this book following, to swear not at all, nor to take oaths, nor to deny putting off the hat or bonnet, nor to deny giving sureties being innocent is no new thing, which is proved out of the Scriptures and book of martyrs, 1661 112Ibid 113Ibid 114Ellis Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, 1661, 7, 9, 10 – 11 115Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, 1661, 12 116 Ibid

36 Hookes’ method of gathering support for his thesis on swearing went beyond quoting the and Biblical scriptures, to include re-imagining the martyrs of Foxe. Hookes extracted any evidence that martyrs he found in other works of martyrology denied taking an oath or did anything else which was associated with Quakerism. He then asserted that it was for those reasons they were persecuted and martyred. For instance, Hookes wrote of the early-church martyr Basilides that “Basilides a soldier, and afterwards a martyr, being required to swear, affirmed plainly, ‘that it was not lawful for him to swear, for that he was a Christian.’ So that it seems that it was the mark of a Christian not to swear.”117 Hookes' interpretive slant in his account of Basilides becomes clear through comparison with a non-Quaker martyrology. Samuel Clarke in his General Martyrology wrote that “Basilides being required to give an oath on the behalf of his fellow-soldiers, he denied the same, plainly affirming that he was a Christian, and therefore he could not swear by the idols….and accordingly the next day he was beheaded.”118 Hookes’ presented this martyr as suffering because he refused to swear at all, whereas in Clarke’s martyrology, Basilides was shown as refusing to swear by a pagan idol—an entirely different stance on swearing, which Hookes elided in order to focus on the denial of the oath itself. He similarly altered accounts in regard to the martyrs Blandina and Ponticus. Hookes said “Blandina and Ponticus suffered about the year 170, in the fourth persecution of the ten, before there was a pope, because they would not swear.”119 As with the Basilides account, other martyrologists told a different story of these two martyrs. Clarke and Bauthumley recorded Blandina as being killed simply because she resolutely confessed herself to be a Christian, with nothing said of oaths having anything to do with it.120 The 1563 edition of Foxe contained nothing relating to either Blandina or Ponticus, but the 1570 edition said of them that they were “compelled thereby to swear by their [persecutors’] Idols,” but refused and thus were executed.121 Here again, Hookes took a passage which stated that two Christians were martyred for refusing to swear by pagan idols, and conflated that with refusing to swear in any and all cases. That they would not swear was true, but whereas it was the condition of the oath—by pagan idols—that Foxe emphasized as being repugnant to the two martyrs, it was the act of refusal itself that Hookes stressed. By demonstrating that Early Church martyrs had died for refusing oaths, he could show that Quaker convictions were not innovations, but were held by the Early Church.

117Ellis Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, 1661, 8. He referred to the Eusebian martyrology as his source 118Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 47 119Ellis Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, 1661, 24 120Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, 44 – 45 Bauthumley. A Brief Historical Relation. Ed. 1676, 17 – 18 121Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1570, Book 1, 60

37 Hookes even more dramatically altered martyrs’ stories in the case of of Bohemia. He stated that “it is one of John Wycliffe’s Articles…that all oaths which be made for any contract or civil bargain betwixt man and man, be unlawful,” and then baldly stated that “John Hus and of Prague were condemned for holding Wycliffe’s opinions.”122 Hookes wanted his reader to conclude that Hus was burned for that particular conviction of Wycliffe, rather than any of his other teachings (such as insisting on the laity receiving communion in both kinds). This, again, is evidence that Hookes was bringing a Quaker lens to martyrology, and interpreting—at times manipulating—the records to promote his faith community and to attack those who disagreed with the Quaker stance on oaths. Hookes later wrote a second, 31-page martyrology in the pamphlet style, and it was no less polemical than his first, although there were some intriguing differences between the two. In his later work, entitled The Spirit of the Martyrs is Risen, and the Spirit of the Old Persecutor is Risen and Manifest, Hookes began by providing a list of the reasons for which the martyrs he would discuss had suffered: Several things being taken out of the book of Martyrs which they suffered for: 1. For working on holy days, and for not having bells rung when they preached. 2. For eating flesh in Lent, and on the days called Fridays, and other days which are forbidden. 3. For not going to the church, and for denying the outward cross. 4. For speaking in the steeple houses. 5. For meeting together in houses, woods, fields, and barns, and for not going processioning and for denying organs. 6. For not paying , and churching women. 7. For saying any place was as holy ground to bury in as the church-yard, and 8. For saying that the gift of God could not be bought nor sold for money; for these things the martyrs suffered, and for many other.123

Every item on his list was an aspect of Quaker practice. Hookes returned to his original approach but this time went after more than just swearing, expanding to assert that martyrs over the years had suffered for a multitude of Quaker convictions. Whereas other martyrologies organized their entries by

122Ellis Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, 1661, 9 123Ellis Hookes, The spirit of the martyrs is risen and the spirit of the old persecuter is risen and manifest, several things being taken out of the Book of martyrs which they suffered for 1. For working on Holy dayes 2. For eating flesh in Lent 3. For not going to church 4. For speaking in the steeple-houses 5. For meeting together in houses, woods 6. For not paying tithes 7. For saying any place was as holy ground to bury in as the church-yard, and 8. For saying that the gift of God could not be bought nor sold for money, 1665, 1

38 the period or location of persecution, Hookes arranged them under topical headings, according to which Quaker beliefs they died defending. There was, accordingly, a list of persons burned because they ate meat during Lent, a list of those martyred for holding religious meetings in fields and houses, and the like for other Quaker convictions. One notable example of Hooke’s interpretive method was the case of Isabel Treacher. Quoting her as saying that she “could better instruct her daughter Ann than many others,” Hookes concluded “so see here is a woman teacher which is no new thing.” 124 As with his use of Basilides, Blandina and Ponticus, Hookes mined a martyr’s story, construing it as evidence for the historicity of Quaker beliefs. This time he conflated Isabel’s claim to personal, parental instruction of her child with the controversial Quaker belief that women should be able to deliver religious instruction in a public house of worship. One of the chief differences between Hookes’ two martyrologies was that they framed their accounts in vastly different ways. Whereas the Spirit of Christ led off with a statement that martyrs have suffered throughout history for convictions “which we also, the People of God called Quakers, do now suffer for, as many thousands have done,” Hookes’ subsequent work began with a harangue against the Roman Catholic Church.125 Hookes employed the argument found in Robert Young’s Breviary of Later Persecutions, which asserted that “Rome is not now, as it was in the primitive times.”126 All too reminiscent of Young, Hookes unleashed his polemic with the opening statement that his subject was “The difference betwixt the Church of Rome now, from the ancient Roman Church,” which, he said “pretends authority to invest bishops to give benefits to bind consciences,” so that they “make laws to spoil the churches [the ], and or dispensing the eating of meat in times forbidden.”127 Hookes was arguing that the Church of Rome had rejected early Christians’ practices, in that it outlawed eating meat in Lent and refusing to tithe (both, not coincidentally, also specifically Quaker practices). This martyrology attacked the Roman Catholic Church, which would win the approval of many English readers. It cleverly did so by focusing on that church’s opposition to practices shared by contemporary Quakers and early Christians. Anti-Catholic diatribes were not new in Anglophone martyrology, but the appearance of such an argument in this work by Hookes, whose previous work exhibited no such agenda, is at first glance an anomaly. Hookes wrote his first work ninety-eight years after the publication of Acts and Monuments, which certainly had anti-Catholic rhetoric at its core, and yet Hookes’ first work did not seem to be 124Hookes, The Spirit of the Martyrs, 1665, 13 125Hookes, The Spirit of Christ, 1661, 1 Hookes, The Spirit of the Martyrs, 1665, 1 126Young, Breviary of the Later Persecutions, Ed. 1663, i 127Hookes, The Spirit of the Martyrs, 1665, 3

39 influenced by Foxe’s anti-Romanism. Between the production of his first and second works, however, came the publication of Young’s Breviary of 1663. At only 200 pages, it was a mere 10% the size of the most recent edition of Foxe available to Hookes in the 1660s, and so was a more approachable, and affordable book, and therefore perhaps more influential document on Hookes than even Foxe was. Certainly Foxe delivered nowhere as clear a statement that Rome had changed from what it was in the days of the primitive church. This would lead one to conclude that Hookes lifted that idea from Young and not from Foxe, and decided to write his second martyrology in the mode of Young’s diatribe, rather than in Foxe’s. There would seem to be no other readily apparent reason why between 1661 and 1665 Hookes would have so drastically renovated his approach, style, and argument other than that he was influenced by the 1663 Breviary of Later Persecutions. Hookes was conversant not only with Young’s work, for he derived some of his martyrological material from Clarke and Foxe as well. This pattern of incorporating other authors’ work into Hookes’ own showed that, rather than distancing himself from the discourse of martyrology employed by other Protestant faiths, he as a Quaker was actually embedding himself into the larger conversation. Hookes in effect used the dominant Protestant discourse as a means of asserting his own identity as a Quaker and defending Quaker beliefs. As there was a corps of nonconformist martyrologists taking up the cry against persecution, so also was Hookes not alone in his martyrological defense of Quakerism. Ambrose Rigge also took up pen and paper to assert the historical legitimacy of Quakerism. As with Hookes, he gave a précis of his argumentative points in his title.128 Again, similar to Hookes, Rigge embedded himself within the mainstream of martyrology by announcing that his work was derived from the Book of Martyrs (the name by which Acts and Monuments came to be known in the common parlance). He, like Hookes, Clarke and Young, was also using the device of liberalizing the definition of martyrs to include those who suffered “the loss of their lives and liberties,” so as to more easily associate modern sufferers who were not being executed with ancient martyrs who had been.129

128Ambrose . The good old way and truth which the ancient Christians many ages and generations ago witnessed unto in the world from age to age, even from the dayes of Christ unto this very time, wherein the same doctrine, life and practice is witnessed unto by us who are in contempt called Quakers, through many tribulations, which our ancestors, the most ancient and true Christians that ever were upon the earth, sealed unto, with the loss of their lives and liberties, by which, in short, is fully manifested, in what is treated of herein, that the doctrine of the Quakers, in denying to swear any oath, and their refusing to pay tythes, and many other things they practise, was the doctrine and practise of the most famous and renowned Christians, both testified of in the Scriptures of truth, and the books of martyrs, 1669, i 129Ibid

40 Like Hookes, Rigge cited Early Church authorities as having held Quaker beliefs. His work began with an exposition on the Biblical support for abjuring to swear.130 Rigge then turned to the Early Church authorities Polycarp, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Ambrose for their witness concerning oaths.131 Additionally he claimed Wycliffe was against swearing, and John Hus and Jerome of Prague also, whom he –like Hooke—claimed “were condemned for holding of John Wycliffe’s opinions.”132 The point of Rigge’s thorough-going examination of others who had been against oaths was that “it will manifestly appear, that the Quakers’ denial of all swearing is no new doctrine, but the renewing of that which was commanded and practiced by the best of Christians above sixteen hundred years ago.”133 This statement was a direct echoing of the Foxean imperative to prove that Protestantism was also “no new doctrine,” by tying ancient and recent martyrs together under one doctrinal roof. Rigge, therefore, like Hooke, was deeply familiar with and involved in the discourse of Protestant martyrology as initiated by Foxe, and enriched by numerous other voices. Like Clarke, Bauthumley and Billingsley, the Quaker martyrologist Rigge seems to have taken up martyrology as a response to his own personal persecution experiences. Describing himself on his title page, Rigge said that this work was “written by a branch sprung from the ancient stock of David, which hath long been compassed about with wild beasts; but through the tender mercies of the Lord yet remained alive,” thereby attributing to himself both the martyrology, and the standing of a martyr.134 In his post-script to the pamphlet, Ambrose Rigge even included a five-page martyrological autobiography. He introduced this section by stating that “I could not let this little book pass without annexing hereunto some few of the Bonner like practices of Leonard Letchford, priest of Hurst- Pierpoint, who calls himself a Gospel-Minister, which within this seven years past he hath done against Ambrose Rigge for his obedience unto the commands of Christ, as before expressed….and secondly, against Ambrose’s wife.” Unique among the martyrological authors of this period, Rigge also claimed to be a prophet, saying: Now in the 11th Month in the year 166(8) did the Word of the Lord come unto me saying, ‘Write, and give a testimony for my Name thereby, and spread it amongst those who have multiplied thine, and many others sufferings, for my Name and Testimony, these several years past, that they may all be left without excuse when I call them before my Judgment Seat, to give an account of the deeds done in their bodies, who 130Rigge, The Good Old Way and Truth, 1669, 5 131Rigge, The Good Old Way and Truth, 1669, 14 – 17 132Rigge, The Good Old Way and Truth, 1669, 15 133Rigge, The Good Old Way and Truth, 1669, 13 134Rigge, The Good Old Way and Truth, 1669, i

41 have not yet repented of their evil, but in secret have vindicated themselves, as that they have done me service in persecuting them whom I have sent to be witnesses for my Name and Truth in the earth.’135

Despite the stark doctrinal differences which the two Quaker martyrologists had relative to the other religious martyrologists of the period, there seems to have been a large degree of communication between the Quakers and their non-Quaker contemporaries. Both the Quakers and the nonconformist writers participated in a collective, almost collaborative reinventing of the genre of martyrology in English, as authors borrowed freely from one another, incorporating themes, writing styles, argumentative platforms, rhetorical devices—not to mention martyrs—from each other, according to their needs as authors and polemicists. The martyrologies of this period were not written in ignorance – or even complete rejection—of one another’s methods and claims, but as part of a genre of writings which borrowed from the same pool of ideas, the same cast of characters. The authors seem to have had similar motivations and personal backgrounds, although different objectives and religious orientations. The final Quaker martyrology of the period was a pamphlet produced by Edward Burrough in 1661.136 As with Rigge and Hookes, Burrough’s argument was leveled against persecution. Burrough bemoaned the fact that “divers kinds of religion, church-government, and practices of ordinances, of faith and worship have been extant in the world; and nations and countries have been all in division, strife and contention about these matters, and have been also persecuting one another violently unto bonds and death, for and because of difference in judgment and practice concerning spiritual things.”137 His complaint concerning persecution was not against the affliction of Protestantism alone, but of both “Papists against Protestants, and Protestants against Papists,” which was a much more ecumenical rejection of persecution than Rigge or Hooke’s works.138 In particular, the author took aim to repudiate a Catholic pamphlet which he claimed was stirring up the old contentions again.139 One tactic by which Burrough said the author of that work, entitled Semper Iidem, or A Parallel of Phanaticks &c., employed was through his use of the term “Phanatick.”140

135Rigge, The Good Old Way and Truth, 1669, 5 – 6 136 Edward Burrough. Persecution Impeached as a Traytor Against God, His Laws and Government; And the Cause of the Antient Martyrs Vindicated, against the Cruelty Inflicted Upon Them by the Papists in Former Dayes. (London, 1661) 137 Burrough, Persecution Impeached, 1 138 Ibid 139 Burrough, Persecution Impeached, 2 140 Burrough, Persecution Impeached, 4

42 Burrough was clever in his denunciation of the use of such spiritual pejoratives, however, in that he said Semper Iidem’s slurs “reacheth not only to others whom they may call, more phanatical, as Quakers, Anabaptists, etc., but to the very Protestants themselves, even to all whatsoever that differ from the Church of Rome.”141 Burrough’s argument would condemn all uses whatsoever of the term “Phanatick,” via the rhetorical device of rebuking a Catholic polemic which attacked Protestants in general. Burrough explained the flexible application of that term, saying that “when the publick was generally Presbyterian, then they that would not conform to that, but opposed it, were called Phanaticks; and now when the publick is Episcopal, even the Presbyterians themselves, and all that differe from that way and cannot conform to it, are reproached by the scornful name of phanatick.” He was attempting to motivate regular, conforming Protestants to reject the term “Phanatick,” which, he said, in English society had come to describe whoever was not of the majority. At the time of Burrough’s writing, that included Quakers. In addition to rejecting this terminology, Burrough also condemned the author of Semper Iidem on account of alleging that a number of accepted Protestant martyrs were illegitimate. He thereby circuitously included a catalog of several prominent martyrs for Protestanism, albeit doing so via his polemical defense against the term “phanatick,” a slur which he felt jeopardized his faith community. Thus, by defending all of Protestantism against a Catholic diatribe and its use of a specific inflammatory term, he crafted an argument which effectively defended the Quaker faith in the context of English marginalization of that faith community. This was a rhetorical maneuver highly reminiscent of Hookes’ own, in that it strengthened the Quakers’ minority position by defending the whole of Protestantism against attack by an outside faith. Ironically, Burrough himself was an inflammatory figure, who attracted his share of the public ire. Of him Catie Gill wrote that “Burrough's Quakerism was of a particularly confrontational kind; indeed he is described on the title-page of the posthumously published works as a ‘son of Thunder and Consolation,’” and that “the thunder was directed mostly at those Quaker enemies whom Burrough regarded as ungodly.”142 In true Quaker fashion, Burrough’s venomous writing was no respecter of persons. He flatly told Charles II that “the parliamentarians had been raised by God, who was ‘clearly on their side’, to judge ‘your iniquities, which were many and great against God,’” and yet he also thundered judgment against the Parliament.143

141 Ibid. [italics in original]

142 Catie Gill, ‘Burrough, Edward (1633–1663)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/4103, accessed 7 June 2011] 143 Ibid

43 It is no surprise, then, that Burrough suffered a measure of retribution for his outspokenness on behalf of Quakerism. Consistent with the biographies of other anti-persecution martyrologists, Burrough was “beaten by a mob in Durham (1653), and banished from Bristol (1654), Ireland (1656), and Dunkirk (1659),” in addition to being put in jail on several occasions and eventually dying imprisoned in 1663.144 The text of Persecution Impeached certainly bears testimony to his personal experience of suffering for one’s conscience. Burrough’s work was highly consistent with the other post-Foxean Quaker martyrologies, not only in rejecting persecution, but in the rhetorical strategies which he employed to adapt the martyrological genre to his specific faith community’s defense.

Part IV -- Standard Deviations Unlike the works considered thus far, which all shared a strong anti-persecution thesis not found in Foxe, some post-Foxean martyrologies stayed closer to Foxe’s model and rhetorical motives. A number of the seventeenth-century martyrologists retained much of Foxe’s argumentation and stylistic characteristics, while incorporating the new approaches of authors like Clarke and Billingsley. One such book was Robert Young’s martyrology A Breviary of Later Persecutions. 145 Published in 1663, this work appeared earlier than both Clarke’s Looking-Glass for Persecutors and Bauthumley’s Brief Historical Relation, and so Young’s book was uninfluenced by those two works’ contributions to the genre. In its title, though, one can still see that its focus was upon persecutions, and not the individual martyrs themselves. This work had no devotional emphasis, as did Cotton’s Mirror of Martyrs and Foxe’s Acts and Monuments. Young’s title was also in keeping with the attempt by later martyrologists to write shorter books in the wake of the 2,100-page Acts and Monuments. In the title Young used the term “professors” to refer to those who suffer for their faith—rather than the term “martyrs.”146 He was thereby donning the language of Clarke in his General Martyrology of 1651. Clarke included biographies of ministers who suffered for their faith, but were not killed, and called them “confessors.”147 Most of Young's accounts were of literal martyrs, but using “professors of the gospel of Jesus Christ” in the title gave Young a flexibility which aided him rhetorically. Structurally, Young’s martyrology was organized by location or episode of persecution, with separate sections for “The Martyrs of Germany,” “The French Martyrs,” “The Spanish Martyrs,” or “The

144 Ibid 145 Robert Young, A Breviary of the Later Persecutions, 1663. 146Ibid 147Clarke, A General Martyrology, Ed. 1660, iv

44 Italian Martyrs.” 148 The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre had its own narrative, as did the persecution of the Waldenses and the Protestants of the Marian era.149 Within each of these textual divisions, Young employed a dense, descriptive style, which related in depth the background to each individual’s martyrdom and the sufferings each endured. He did not discuss the spiritual characteristics of the martyrs, nor did he include any letters or prayers of his martyrs which would illustrate them as people and spiritual beings as in the Mirror of Martyrs. Rather, he documented in detail the sequence of events, and the punishments inflicted in each case. In this execution, then, Young was very closely following the model of Foxe. Young also cut against the grain of his contemporary martyrologists in that he emulated Foxe in the chronological scope of his martyrology. Young’s work spanned only the period beginning with John Wycliffe up to the present day.150 Young explained that he began when he did because there had been no general persecution before Wycliffe’s day, since the time of Constantine.151 This gap occurred because Satan the instigator of persecution, had been bound up for a thousand years.152 A similar assertion was to be found in Foxe, who stated that his work discloses the history of martyrdoms “which have happened in the time of these 500 years, since Satan broke loose.”153 Young thus did not employ Eusebius or the other sources of early-church martyrs which Clarke used, nor did he rail against persecution in general as a phenomenon or as an evil act in itself. Instead he produced an intensely focused view of persecution resulting from his chronological and geographic choices for material. Robert Young’s deviations from the typical post-Foxean martyrology stemmed largely from his aim of writing a polemic condemning Roman Catholicism. The full title of Young’s martyrology was A Breviary of the Later Persecutions of the Professors of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, under the Romish and Antichristian Prelates. Whereas Clarke, Bauthumley and Billingsley all took issue with persecution in general, and so correspondingly analyzed martyrdom dating back to the time of Christ or before, Young and Foxe both accused Rome exclusively of persecuting the righteous. Young believed that “Rome is not now, as it was in the primitive times,” for “it was then the seat of the true service and worship of God, where the Word of God was truly and purely preached.”154 He went on that “now Rome is full of errors, superstition and idolatry, of all iniquity and wickedness, full of vile abominations.”155 Condemning the

148Young, A Breviary of the Later Persecutions, 1663, 53, 60, 78, 85 149Young, A Breviary of the Later Persecutions, 1663, 67, 74, 106 150Young, A Breviary of the Later Persecutions, 1663, 2 151 Young, A Breviary of the Later Persecutions, 1663, 1 152Ibid 153Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Ed. 1563, Part 1, 1 154Young, A Breviary of the Later Persecutions, 1663, i 155Ibid

45 Church of Rome via its practice of inflicting martyrdom directed his view only to recent centuries. Cotton also viewed Christian martyrology as a recent phenomenon. His purposes were also highly Foxean, the difference being accounted for in that he picked up on the devotional aspect rather than the anti-Roman polemical aspect of Foxe’s work. In light of this anti-Catholic bent, Young’s hybrid geographical and chronological organization schema makes sense. He needed to demonstrate the widespread nature of Rome’s persecutions in order to support his thesis that this church was universally an afflicter of the righteous. His thick- descriptive approach also worked well in light of an anti-Roman Catholic drive. He could afford to spend significant effort establishing the horrors inflicted by Roman Catholicism because he was only considering Catholic persecutions, and only in recent times. This narrower focus allowed him to provide a degree of explicit detail unusual among the martyrologists writing in English during this period. It also, arguably, required him to do so, if he were to make his anti-Catholic point fully and effectively. In sum, then, Young represents a departure from the general direction of Anglophone martyrological publication in the seventeenth century, the differences being brought about by his aim to discredit Catholicism. There is little to no biographical information available on Robert Young, and so no clear connection can be drawn between his anti-Catholic polemical stance on martyrdom and his own personal experiences. With other authors we have seen that religious non-conformity and experiences of persecution corresponded with the authors adopting a stance that condemned persecution widely and in general. Personal experience of maltreatment inspired these later writers to move beyond Foxe’s rhetorical limitations of focusing on persecution by the Catholic Church. If Young's own religious orientation similarly shaped his stance, then perhaps he conformed willingly to the Church of England. He may have aimed his martyrological polemic at forces outside the kingdom and its national creed as he had not experienced persecution within it. What can definitely be concluded, however, is that instead of writing brief biographies of individual martyrs in order to present a means of spiritual self- improvement, later martyrologists tended to narrate episodes of persecution in order to condemn it. Despite the aberrations in chronology, composition, and claims, Young followed the general trend to descry persecution. He was only unusual for his times in that he narrated only actions specifically perpetrated by Roman Catholics. Young’s book was not the only martyrology which focused on repudiating Roman Catholicism, while innovating somewhat in the style of the text. In 1599, Thomas Brice composed and published his 28-page poem entitled “A Brief register in meter containing the names and patient sufferings of the

46 martyrs [and] members of Jesus Christ, afflicted, tormented, and cruelly burned here in England, in ye time of Q. Mary, together with the year, month, day, and place of their martyrdoms.”156 It was revolutionary in one major respect—nobody had published anything on martyrology since the hoary Acts and Monuments itself had been produced some 36 years earlier. This first foray of an author other than Foxe into a field dominated by frequent reprints of Foxe did not fall far from the tree. First, it notably contained only accounts of martyrs from the Marian persecutions, placing it squarely in the rhetorical camp of the anti-Catholic martyrologies—a stance made evident also by the epigraph: “How long tarriest thou (O Lord) holy and true, to judge and avenge our blood, on that that dwell on the earth.”157 Second, it catalogued the martyrs in simple chronological order, with headings noting the year and month of the martyrs’ deaths—also a Foxean convention. Stylistically, the most significant feature of this martyrology was its compositional style being a metered, rhyming poem, with stanzas of six lines each, having a simplistic rhyming pattern of ABABCC. Interestingly, this poem ended each and every stanza with a reference to Queen Elizabeth I. Throughout the first 66 stanzas, the pattern was thus: “When Rogers ruefully was brent / When Sanders did the like sustain / When faithful Farrar forth was sent/ His life to lose with grievous pain/ When constant Hooper dyed the death/ We wished for our Elizabeth.”158 Every stanza begins with “When…” and ends with “we wished for our Elizabeth,” until the concluding stanzas at the end of Mary’s reign when, Brice said, “God sent us our Elizabeth.”159 After recounting the coronation of Elizabeth, the author rejoiced that “Our wished wealth hath brought us peace,/ Our joy is full, our hope obtained,/ the blazing brands of fire do cease,/ The slaying sword also restrained,/ The simple sheep preserved from death,/ By our good Queen Elizabeth.”160 Concluding his martyrology with a prayer for the queen’s wellbeing, Brice wrote: “Pray we therefore both night and day,/ For her highness, as we be bound,/ O Lord, preserve this branch of bay,/ And all her foes with force confound,/ Here long to live, and after death/ Receive our Queen Elizabeth.”161 The resulting martyrology became an outright paean to Elizabeth. Both the repetitive “we wished for our Elizabeth” and the concluding stanzas glorifying the Queen contributed to this effect. Just as Foxe had dedicated his martyrology to Elizabeth, comparing himself to Eusebius under the protection

156Thomas Brice. A briefe register in meter containing the names and patient suffrings of the martyrs [and] members of Iesus Christ, afflicted, tormented, and cruelly burned here in England, in ye time of Q. Marie, together with the yeere, moneth, day, and place of their martyrdom, 1599 157Brice, A Brief Register in Meter, 1599, 27 158Brice, A Brief Register in Meter, 1599, 3 159Brice, A Brief Register in Meter, 1599, 26 160Ibid 161Brice, A Brief Register in Meter, 1599, 27

47 of Constantine (Elizabeth), and just as Clement Cotton dedicated and presented his martyrology to the Princess Elizabeth, just as she contracted a marriage with the Protestant ruler Frederick, so also did Brice adoringly ingratiate himself to a protector-patron (who in 1599 was still alive). In all these ways, then, one can see how this early martyrology was still in the shadow of the Acts and Monuments in nearly every respect other than its poetical form. Published during the period in which Foxe reprints were the only book-length martyrological works being produced, Brice’s Register was a further demonstration that real innovation and development in martyrology was a phenomenon of the seventeenth century, which was rooted in and motivated by the religious issues of that period. It was a first step toward innovation in the genre, but Foxe’s influence loomed yet too near, and it would take other’s contributions, and a new landscape of religion in England to move Anglophone martyrology away from its foundations in Foxe. Post-Foxean martrology in the seventeenth century became a medium by which those afflicted for nonconformist beliefs and practices rejected their marginalization with less risk of censorship or retaliation than openly denouncing Anglicanism would carry. This resort to the trope and trappings of martyrdom for a defensive discourse was not exclusive to one community of faith, but was undertaken across the spectrum of religious diversity, and even included Quakers. Whereas the genre began as an inter-credal dispute between Protestantism and Catholicism, the mainstream of Protestant martyrology ultimately became a common stage on which diverse iterations of the faithful could borrow and exchange material for use in opposing the dominant state church, and each other. As such, it was a locus of communication among the faith communities of early modern England, and served to collaboratively, if unintentionally, form a cohesive body of writings which descried the official church’s behavior toward unrecognized bodies of adherents. Almost without exception, post-Foxean martyrology was not a tradition of the majority faith, nor a preserve of the highly orthodox, but was a medium of expression through which competing Protestant ideologies met, grappled and contended with each other. This body of writings was one half of the new developments in martyrology which emerged during the middle-to-late seventeenth century. For reasons which will be explicated in the following chapter, the same period of history gave rise to a body of martyrological writings which did not advance religious theses or attack persecution. Instead, this second corpus of later martyrology expropriated the elements of martyrology entirely out of the religious discourse in which it originated, in order to propound political positions.

48 Chapter Three – Martyrs of the Realm

Part I -- Royalist Retrenchment The preceding chapter showed that martyrologists writing to condemn religious persecution on doctrinal grounds almost invariably shared an experience of persecution with the martyrs they catalogued, and that their sufferings were, likewise, for alleged religious heterodoxy. In the political martyrologies, a new pattern emerged. These authors were not put out of their livings for religious dissent, nor were they publically humiliated or scourged for nonconformity. Very few could be said to have had anything resembling a literal “persecution experience,” and yet they joined the religious martyrologists in resorting to the same discourse laid down by Foxe. They used it to explicate an entirely different set of convictions, complaints, and condemnations. The political martyrologists adapted the genre to support the King and to reestablish the legitimacy of monarchy . The political martyrologists who wrote before and after the 1650s were almost all loyal to the King. In contrast, the religious martyrologists during this period and the Restoration were non- conformists, who had been over-represented in the ranks of those who opposed the monarch. Thus, both religious and political martyrologists experienced repression at some point in their careers. The emergence of nonconformist martyrology during the Restoration followed the acts enforcing conformity to the Church of England. Since martyrology generally coincided with experience of persecution, the emergence of royalist martyrology in the Restoration raises new questions about the nature of royalist marginalization, because nearly all of their works were produced during the Restoration when the monarchist platform was re-empowered. How could one be afflicted as a royalist when monarchy was reinstated and vindicated (although with qualification), and when prominent anti-monarchists were prosecuted or at the least suppressed? What motivated Restoration royalists to write martyrology presents a dilemma. The situation of the monarchy in Restoration was remarkably similar to that of the Church of England during the reign of Elizabeth I. During Elizabeth’s reign her fledgling Protestant church was only recently established with any security domestically, and was still threatened from without by various continental powers. John Foxe’s martyrology in that period, as discussed earlier, served to legitimize the Protestant creed as a whole, and also compared Elizabeth to Constantine, whom he billed as the defender of Christianity in the primitive Christian era. There was a great deal at stake for English Protestants in the continued survival and health of the Church of England. Likewise for royalists in the advent of Charles II the monarchy was an ascendant yet insecure institution which needed

49 strengthening and legitimizing. One way that royalists in the Restoration accomplished the socio- political reinforcement of monarchy was by the rhetorical devices and spiritual claims of martyrology. These writers would use the discourse of martyrdom to assert that the true Christian was one who supported the king. Regardless of all other doctrinal similitude, loyalty was the dividing line between the heretic and the truly faithful. Royalist martyrologists defined the righteousness of a Christian not as doctrinal adherence to established canons of faith, but as loyalty to the socio-political authority structures established by God. This included the divinely instituted monarchy, as well as the hierarchical governance of the state church. Royalist martyrologists supported the authority that ecclesiastical authorities had over their congregations, and condemned any challenge to a minister’s right to autocratically govern their church. They argued in favor of such ecclesiastical authority not for authentically spiritual reasons, but because their actual intent was to defend the right of the King to rule. By maintaining that the principle of autocracy in the church was ordained by God, they established a basis for also upholding the right of the king to rule. Royalist martyrologists also made the next logical connection: to die for a God-ordained autocratic monarch was to die in the service of God, and therefore to be a martyr for the faith. Royalists viewed those who died for the King as being within the tradition of Christian martyrdom, not separate from it. The genre of martyrology was also useful to royalists in that it presented a ready-made framework for interpreting history. By declaring that dying for the God-ordained King constituted martyrdom, they were able to present the fall of their king and the subsequent Restoration as the work of God affirming His righteous servants. This was because martyrdology always assumed a future, divine vindication of the fallen righteous. Because the King himself was believed by royalists to have been a , the eventual Restoration of monarchy made sense. In the same way that martyrology asserted that God would vindicate Christians persecuted for their faith, so also the royalists claimed that He vindicated those who died for their loyalty. The chain of events of 1641 to 1660 was presented as an affliction of the righteous followers of God and (therefore) the King, whom God caused to be restored to power in the person of Charles II. The royalist martyrologies, then, looked to martyrology as a way to reinterpret the fall of the monarchy within an historiographical framework which strengthened the monarchy in the Restoration. Again, this was a similar strategy to Foxe’s, who successfully presented the Elizabethan monarchy as a divine vindication of English Protestantism, hence providing an attractive example for Restoration royalists seeking to strengthen Charles II’s reign with a discourse of legitimacy.

50 Understandably, one of the first reactions to the shock of King Charles' death by execution was to assert that he did not deserve death. This may seem simplistic, but again, the obvious nature of such a reaction is complicated by the fact that royalists chose to vindicate Charles not on the basis only of his divine right to rule or of the legitimacy of his policies, but on the grounds that his character was holy and righteous—like that of a holy martyr. Myriads of texts defended Charles I and asserted that he was a martyr. Despite attempting to vindicate him by invoking the idea of the martyr, most of these texts did not actually employ the discourse of martyrology, or its textual conventions. Consequently, although they made limited use of the idea of martyrdom, they do not fall within the martyrological discipline. Among such texts the most widely circulated then and the most attentively studied since was the famous work Eikon Basilike, first published in 1649.162 Composed in the first person (purportedly by Charles himself), this book was an apologetic (auto?)biography of Charles’ reign, focusing particularly on his final years. It depicted a conscientious king who stood firm in his convictions and accepted his defeat as chastisement from God, to whom he patiently submitted. Eikon Basilike’s presentation of Charles strongly evoked the trope of the martyr and presented his detractors as unreasonable and unjust. This book strengthened the royalist position more than any other contemporary text. The most famous book of its kind, Eikon Basilike was followed by numerous publications which similarly presented Charles as a martyr, but utilized neither the textual conventions nor the ideological discourse of martyrology. This plethora of essays which vindicated Charles I after his death all followed in Eikon Basilike’s footsteps and heavily borrowed from its interpretation of Charles as the martyred king. The influence of the Eikon was so widespread in royalist writings that it also permeated the writing of the political martyrologies.

Part Ii – The Royal martyr Written in metered verse, the 1649 poem An Elegie on the Meekest of Men, the Most Constant of Martyrs, Charles the I analyzed regicide in much the same way as Thomas Brice framed his martyrological paean to Elizabeth: in a dichotomy of virtue and vice. As the title suggests, An Elegie presented Charles as mild and patient toward his detractors.163 By writing that “as the rage of these tempestuous times/ Was his misfortune only, not his crimes,” the author asserted that Charles' actions which put him at odds with Parliament were not his fault. If differences arose out of the whim of fortune and circumstance, the monarch himself was exculpated from any wrongdoing.164

162 Eikon Basilike: The Pourtracture of his Sacred Majestie in His Solitudes and Sufferings. London, 1649 163Elegie on the meekest of men, the most constant of martyrs, Charles the I, 1649, 9 164Elegie on the meekest of men, 1649, 10

51 By shifting the focus from the actions of the King to the acts of his opponents, the author of An Elegie accomplished a significant rhetorical maneuver: he could compare Charles I to Jesus Christ. The author opened his christological comparison by stating that Charles' true glory was not in his meek and wise reign, but in his suffering as a martyr: “yet, here the generous lustre justly springs,/ Less from the scepter, then the sufferings.” Of his peculiar lot of suffering the author claimed that “his harsh draught had some ingredients mixed,/ Which ne'er on Prince or Man till now were fixed./ No Agonie so temper'd, no such Cup,/ Unless when God help'd Man to drink it up.” The author thereby claimed that the nature of Charles' misfortunes were unique to him. The contemporary Church of England would say the same of Christ's sufferings. Likewise, Charles was alone in his intensity of affliction, for of “the sufferings, rival none endure.” Wrapping up the christology, the author compared those who resisted Charles I and brought about his downfall to the Jews who demanded the death of Christ, saying that “Those Jews than these less knew they did amiss.”165 To complete his reframing of the regicide within a pro-monarchy historiography, the author of An Elegie drew from his reconstruction of Charles I as a type of Christ by presenting the beneficial outcomes of the King's death. First, he re-framed Charles' death as ultimately a good thing—a harsh improvement—by saying that “like the searching ploughs,/ [which inflict] More fertile wounds on natures yielding brows,” so also the wounding of the King “Were not the scar, but tillage of his heart,/ Cares thriving husbandry, and fruitful smart,” so that “Where what was sown a Crosse, sprung up a sheaf,/ And Vertue, Harvest, though the Furrow grieve.”166 Having come to terms with the actual killing of the King, the author then elaborated on the good that came from this apparent hurt, stating that “His glorious own Record gave this presage,/ Which next to hallowed writ, and sacred page,/ shall busie pious wonder, and abide,/ To christian pilgrimage a second guide.”167 The author thereby presented Charles' purported martyrdom as a second example to the Christian, to be paired with the Biblical Scriptures. The result of the Christian having two sources of spiritual guidance was that it “reconciles (till now) the eternal hates/ twixt simple piety, and fraudulent states./ Shows how all Machiavell in lies,/ And cunning makes men wily, but not wise.”168 The “fraudulent states” of course referred to the Protectorate and Commonwealth, and “simple piety” to the religion of Charles I and of the Church of England. The author here asserted that the final outcome of regicide would be a knitting together of the

165Ibid 166An Elegie on the meekest of men, 1649, 14 167Ibid 168Ibid

52 rent fabric of the English state and society, and would deepen the religious devotion of the people, to have had such a pious, meek martyr for a king. The last lines of this document recall the author’s typification of Charles as Christ, by calling his execution “a vigorous Resignation, not a Death.”169 This assertion concerning Charles was a deliberate evocation of Christ's acceptance of death and voluntary giving up of his life and spirit as presented in Luke 23:46 : “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.'”170 Asserting that Charles willingly went to his death, of course, also presented the king as having the patient endurance and constancy always associated with legitimate, righteous martyrs. Because Charles behaved meekly at his execution, the author implied that Charles and his cause were vindicated, much as the martyred Protestants in Foxe, Clarke, Bauthumley and the other religious martyrologists' works. A further comparison the writer left us with was in the last stanza: “when His unlimited forgiveness flies/ High as His Blood's shrill voice, and tow’ring cries,/ Not spun in scanty half denying prayers,/ But Legacie obliging to His Heirs.”171 Here again, Charles was the all-forgiving Christ, made parallel with Jesus' forgiveness of those who crucified him: “Then said Jesus, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.'”172 Only, with Charles, the forgiveness for regicide would come “When ghastly Death's astonishing Arrest/ In all her terrours, and grim wardrobe dressed,/ From a green Treaty nipped ere fully blown” resulted in the “soft amusements of a restored throne,” which was to say, when the monarchy was restored in the person of the slain king’s heir, Charles II.173 This final excerpt completed the Christology of Charles I: the resurrection being figured in the anticipated Restoration of Charles II. Writing in 1649, the writer of An Elegie looked forward to the return of Charles II as the reconciliation which would mend the hurt to the kingdom, bring the pious back into the Royalist camp and away from republicans, and ultimately make the monarchy even more secure and permanent for having been reestablished. The author used the Biblical account of the crucifixion of Christ along with some elements of the discourse of martyrology as a way to make sense of the death of the king in a spiritual context, and thereby to look forward to the re-establishment of monarchy: God would restore His established mode of government. The Elegie was also similar to the Eikon in several non-martyrological respects. It did not contain any other martyrs beside the King, and therefore it could not make any arguments based on a 169Ibid 170Luke 23:46. Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible 171An Elegie on the meekest of men, 1649, 14 172Luke 23:34. Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible 173An Elegie on the meekest of men, 1649, 14

53 multiplicity of witnesses. What it did do was portray a very Christological Charles, and attempt to salvage the royalist identity. For these reasons it appears that An Elegie can be considered a kind of bridge between the true martyrologies and the essays of vindication which drew on the idea of the martyr, but without falling within martyrology as a genre. The need to redefine regicide in order to deploy it as an instrument of royalist rhetoric was also exemplified by Fabian Philipps’ book The royall martyr, published in 1660. The author addressed the newly restored Charles II, son and heir of the martyred king: “the only end both in writing and publishing was to Vindicate your Royal Father, our Dread Sovereign of blessed memory, thereby to make a more easie passage for your most Excellent Majesty to ascend unto the Royall throne of your famous Progenitors.”174 The author then proceeded to give what he asserted was the true account of the first English civil war. What followed was a nearly day-by-day narrative of the Civil War from March 1641 to September 1642, which exonerated the king on the grounds that he was a reasonable man and ruled legitimately. It portrayed Parliament as an aggressive, power-hungry menace to peace and order.175 Following the narrative was a treatise on the legality of the warfare which the King waged against Parliament. Philipps argued that war was invented “where the determining of controversies between two strange Princes of equal Power, could not be had, because they have no superior,” but that in cases of a rebellion against a monarch, the war need not be prosecuted by the ordinary rules of war.176 Philipps based this assertion on his reasoning that since a rebel has a superior (the prince against whom he rebels), “a Rebel therefore cannot properly be called an enemy.”177 Therefore “when any such Arms are borne against Rebels, it is not to be called a War, but an Exercise of Jurisdiction upon traitorous and disloyal persons.”178 If Charles I was not required to follow the rules of war, then nothing he did in his campaign against the Roundhead army was immoral, no matter how unusual or severe. His opponents were by definition illegal and illegitimate combatants. Not simply a royalist political history, this text offers the author's rehabilitation of Charles I in the same way that John Foxe and subsequent religious martyrologists constructed the righteousness of their martyrs. First, the author of this work addressed himself to a protector-patron (as Foxe did with

174 Fabian Philipps. The royall martyr. Or, King Charles the First no man of blood but a martyr for his people Being a brief account of his actions from the beginnings of the late unhappy warrs, untill he was basely butchered to the odium of religion, and scorn of all nations, before his pallace at White-Hall, Jan. 30. 1648. To which is added, A short history of His Royall Majesty Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. third monarch of Great Brittain, 1660, i 175Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, 4 – 38 176 Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, 43 177 Ibid 178 Ibid

54 Elizabeth I, and Clement Cotton with Princess Elizabeth). He erected a dichotomy in which Charles’ behavior was totally upright, and his opponents’ totally depraved.179 After this study in contrasts, the writer appended a list naming all the persons who had participated in the persecution of the righteous king, organizing them by the nature of their offense. This section interweaved two short narratives of the procedure of ordering the execution and the execution day itself, and was followed by a lengthy and detailed biography of the king.180 This inventory of the King’s persecutors mimicked the martyrological practices of cataloging either martyrs or persecutors. Structurally, then, this work has much in common with contemporary religious martyrologies. Charles’ death scene serves as a microcosm of this book’s overall presentation of Charles: “His Majesty continued in prayer all the morning, and receive the Sacrament” until being conveyed to Whitehall, where arriving, “he continued in his Cabinet Chamber at his devotions refusing to dine.”181 Upon ascending the scaffold “yet was his Majesty not affrighted,” but “he shewed more care of the people living then of himself dying,” thereby establishing his constancy in the face of death, and bolstering his identity as a true martyr.182 After giving a short speech, “he meekly went to prayers, and after some heavenly discourse between him and the bishop, having prepared himself, he lifted up his eyes to heaven mildly praying for himself, he stooped down to the block as to a prayer-desk, & most humbly bowed his generous neck to God.”183 Such language gave an impression of the overwhelming piety of the man. At every point in this brief narrative, the author pointed out Charles’ attention to prayer, his self-denial, his meek and mild attitude as the condemned. The reader would be forgiven for mistaking the holy resignation of Charles I for that of an apostle, or even of Christ. Indeed, such was the writer’s intent: to craft a martyrological association of Charles I with recognizable religious figures, both from the contemporary and Foxean martyrological traditions, and also from the Scriptures. Thus, a key feature which shows this work wasn’t simply a partisan history, but puts it in the realm of the martyrology, was its assertion that Charles was not merely upright in his behavior, but was blameless in his character. The argument that Charles did right because he was righteous, took the royalist position into a more spiritual discourse than would be found in a mere history or historical essay. The inclusion of several lists of names of the king’s persecutors also evokes to the student of martyrology the lists of persecutors found in the martyrologies of Samuel Clarke, Nicholas Billingsley, Jacob Bauthumley, as well as the anonymous Martyrologia Alphabetike. Such lists were a device 179 Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, 4 – 127 180 Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, 129 – 143, 145 – 146, 148 – 224 respectively 181 Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, 144 182 Ibid 183 Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, 145

55 whereby the author identified and condemned both the actual individuals who afflicted the righteous, and also the phenomenon of persecution. Whereas in the religious martyrologies, the authors condemned the persecution of true faithful Christians, in this political martyrology the broader target of the anti-persecution rhetoric was rebellion against the monarch. With The Royall Martyr, as with An Elegie on the meekest of men, the authors carefully constructed a representation of the monarch as a kind of or savior-figure, exemplary in his virtue, constant in his endurance of sufferings, and undeserving of his death. This was not the language of politics, but that of religion (albeit applied to politics.) The object in both works was to suggest some kind of deeper, more satisfying meaning for the royalist in the death of their king. Whereas for the author of An Elegie hoped for a restored and strengthened monarchy which fostered loyal piety, for Fabian Philipps, the purpose of writing martyrology was “to make a more easie passage for your most Excellent Majesty to ascend unto the Royall throne,” thereby also strengthening the royalist position.184 Whereas the author of the Elegie remained anonymous, Philipps’ biography is available. Of him, Nicholas Jagger, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography stated that “repairing the harm done against tradition and divine authority by the act of regicide occupied Philipps's career for many years after the Restoration.”185 One of his methods for doing so was the co-optation of the martyrological discourse for use in a political diatribe against anti-royalism. This recourse to the language and conventions of martyrology was not isolated to his own work, but characterized an entire body of seventeenth-century writers who jointly changed the rhetoric of royalism specifically and of English politics generally.

Part III – New martyrs, Old story William Winstanley’s 1665 text entitled The Loyal Martyrology was unambiguously martyrological.186 Whereas Philipps emphasized Charles’ spiritual fervor in order to make his enemies into villainous persecutors, William Winstanley's martyrology replaced piety with loyalty as the primary identification of the author's martyrs, who were all royalist partisans. Aside from this substitution of

184Philipps, The Royall Martyr, 1660, i 185Nicholas Jagger, ‘Philipps, Fabian (1601–1690)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2007 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/22115, accessed 11 May 2011] 186 William Winstanley. The loyall martyrology, or, Brief catalogues and characters of the most eminent persons who suffered for their conscience during the late times of rebellion either by death, imprisonment, banishment, or sequestration together with those who were slain in the Kings service : as also dregs of treachery : with the catalogue and characters of those regicides who sat as judges on our late dread soveraign of ever blessed memory : with others of that gang, most eminent for villainy. (London, 1665)

56 criteria for martyrdom, nearly every other feature of Winstanley’s text was recognizable from the characteristics of the post-Foxean martyrologies. First, the 173 page work was comprised of short entries which introduced a martyr, gave a brief narrative of the deeds which precipitated afflictions, and then recorded their method of execution and behavior at death. Colonel John Morris took a castle which “he Valiantly Defended even to the very pinch of Extremity and was for his Valour and Loyalty ... most inhumanly butchered by those Scelerate Villanies.”187 Of Sir Henry Hide, he wrote that “courageously asserting his Masters Cause, and so rend’ring his Soul to God, [he] is justly inscribed into the Roll of Martyrs.”188 One Eusebius Andrews was recorded as having “died like other Martyrs before him, full of joy and blessed hope.”189 Whereas the martyrs in religious martyrologies died in meekness, the political martyr died with “courage,” and “valour.” Winstanley crafted a parallel between the religious martyrs who died for their understanding of what it meant to be loyal to God, and the political martyrs who died for loyalty to their monarch. The link he used between these two was the language that his royalist martyrs each died “asserting his Master's cause,” that is, in defending the interests of a legitimate authority figure.190 Whereas religious martyrs died asserting their faith, the political martyrs died asserting their politics: their allegiance to a governmental principle rather than a spiritual doctrine. This innovation in the Augustinian dictum that a martyr was identified “non poena sed causa,” that is, not by the death, but by the cause for which they died (it being understood that the cause was keeping the true faith) is further illustrated by Winstanley's repeated use of a phrase which reveals his overall outlook on royalist martyrs. Over and over, he said that they died “in the bed of honour.”191 This “honour” was not religious, but martial in nature, having been earned in combat for the King. Whereas the Foxean concept of dying a martyr required one to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” by maintaining one's convictions steadfastly, and passively, to the death, the political martyrologists praised those who “contended” by actually, militarily fighting to the death for their beliefs. 192 Terse descriptions of each martyr's manner of death were far from the only textual characteristic which The Loyall Martyrology had in common with the works of religious martyrologists. The author retains the post-Foxean table of martyrs preceding the body of the work, which was adopted by martyrologists to enhance readability. The author also retained the textual element of a catalog of

187Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, 27 – 28 188Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, 31 189Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, 30 – 31 190Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, 26, 31 191Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, viii, 37, 59, 64, 68, 73, 74 192Jude 1:3. Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible

57 persecutors and their ill fates, which was used to argue that a martyr had been right in their cause because God's justice sought out and punished their persecutors. This element was divided into two portions, the first entitled “The Names and Characters of those Persons who Sat as Judges, and Sentenced our late Dread Soveraign, Charles the First of Glorious Memory, and how Gods Vengeance overtook many of them for their Bloody, Barbarous Cruelty,” and the second introduced as “a Catalogue of some other Accessories notoriously Guilty in this Horrid Murder, and how Divine Vengeance found them out, rewarding them according to the fruits of their Works.”193 In keeping with the religious martyrologists, Winstanley gave brief biographical essays each person mentioned, concluding with the ignominious fates to which each came. Concluding his hall of shame, the author ended both his catalog of persecutors and the book as a whole with an epigraph drawn from Ecclesiastes: “Curse not the King, no not in thy thought, for a bird in the Air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter,” which neatly wrapped up his theme and message.194 Winstanley’s Loyall Martyrology recounted the sufferings of those who supported the cause of the King during the civil wars. The book opened with a Preface to the Reader, in which the author announced that he would expound “how all things were turned topsie turvy, Religion subverted by Rebellion, Truth trodden down by Treason,” and “how under pretense of a Reformation, all things were turned into Confusion.”195 Note that “religion,” rather than monarchy, was what rebellion undermined, and how “truth,” rather than a ruler or institution, was “trodden down” by treason. The consequence of “religion” and “truth” replacing the more expected, political terms was that the author was implying that proper political order and proper religious order were synonymous. Monarchy was good religion, and to be loyal was to uphold the truth. As was common in post-Foxean martyrology, redefining and replacing key terms was the means by which the discourse of martyrdom was adapted to serve the rhetorical needs of new social and political platforms. Winstanley's key assertion, unstated in this text but demonstrated in its methodology and construction, was that loyalists who died for their king, either by combat or execution by Parliament could be treated in exactly the same way as those who died for their faith, since both were serving divine ends. That was a central assumption of his work: service to royalty equaled service to God, for monarchy was God-ordained and therefore combat in favor of the monarch was a spiritual act with spiritual rewards. The fallen cavalier was a martyr, in Winstanley’s eyes. If royalists such as Winstanley

193 Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, 99, 144 194Ecclesiastes 10:20. Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible 195Winstanley, The Loyall Martyrology, 1665, iii

58 could expropriate the martyrs’ rewards and righteousness, then they could also imply that the future held vindication for their cause, and a betterment of their condition and that of the monarchy. Looking ahead to a favorable resolution for the righteous was always a component of the martyrological discourse in Protestantism. A prevalent Protestant doctrine was that God would vindicate the righteous not only at the last day, but that He would also not allow harm to come to His saved people unless some greater good came from it, a belief rooted in the Biblical statement that “all things work together for good to them that love God.”196 Thus, Protestants, Winstanley included, naturally tended to seek the good that came from a martyr’s death. In the case of royalist claims to martyr status, believing their fallen to be on the side of God enabled martyrologists like Winstanley to interpret the Restoration as the good which God brought out of the affliction of the loyal martyrs: the restored monarchy would be reaffirmed, and stronger than ever. Since Winstanley wrote this martyrology after the Restoration, his motivation could not have been to raise hopes for a returned monarchy. Living under the reign of Charles II—a future which the writers of the royalist martyrologies of 1648 and 1649 had pinned their hopes on—Winstanley nevertheless chose to write martyrology. His book presented heroes of the royalist cause, effectively constructing a panoply of saints and villains defined by their assistance of or resistance to the crown. Since he wrote in the 1660s, the author of this work was not trying to encourage his fellow loyalists to hope for a return to monarchy, thereby helping to preserve the royalist platform during the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Therefore, Winstanley’s choice to write martyrology after the Restoration is evidence that he still felt the monarchy needed bolstering to become again firmly legitimate as the government of the nation. This book’s existence as a typical martyrology in which the only innovation was the replacement of doctrinal for political convictions is evidence that this royalist author was acting out of ideological motivations which drove him to adapt martyrology to his purpose. He felt the need—even in the reign of the restored King—to strengthen the security and rationality of monarchy by presenting it as the divinely vindicated political affiliation. For this, he chose the martyrological genre and its rhetorical platform, which was highly suited to both giving hope to the currently afflicted (as seen in the Quaker martyrologies of Ambrose Rigge and Elias Hookes), and vindicating the formerly afflicted (as seen with Foxe and Brice). Winstanley was asserting that royalty won out because it was the true way all along, and that the catastrophe of the regicide and accompanying deaths of royalists had meaning because of the ultimate re-enforcement of the monarchical constitution of England. In sum, martyrology allowed

196 Romans 8:28. Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible

59 Winstanley to co-opt the civil wars and interregnum into a uniquely Protestant historiography. Using the martyrological discourse he could strengthen his royalist position in the present by explaining both the previous affliction of his cause, and its present ascendancy in the Restoration. The pattern of royalists using martyrology to bolster monarchy with a more secure historiographical and religious discourse is further supported in the work of James Heath. At the beginning to his 465-page political martyrology, published in 1665, Heath—in company with Winstanley —included a prefatory listing of all the martyrs he would discuss. The full title of his work was A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors Who have endured the Pains and Terrours of Death, Arraignment, Banishment, and Imprisonment, for the Maintenance of the Just and Legal Government of these Kingdoms, both in Church and State.197 The significance of this title is multifold. First, the author included “confessors” –those who suffered but did not die for a cause—in his martyrology, as did Winstanley, thereby retaining the innovation which the religious martyrologists employed in order to denounce persecution of non-conformists. Secondly, Heath mentioned that these martyrs died for “both Church and State,” an assertion which hints at his views on the Civil War and on the Parliament which prosecuted it. Not pulling any punches, Heath began his polemical martyrology with allegations of a conspiracy perpetrated by Parliament. His opening sentence led off by stating that “no sooner was the Marian persecution ceased, and the flames thereof extinguished…but a strange and new kind of fire, like a subterraneous conflagration, as indiscernibly, and irresistibly smothered and kindled in the minds of some Factious Persons, pretending to a more holy and severer Discipline of Life…persecuted this but just escaped Church.”198 He was, of course, referring to those known as “Puritans,” the “fanaticks” of Chestlin’s book. Reviling other groups who dissented from the Church of England, Heath, like Chestlin, maintained that there existed a conspiracy among them, and that “the pretence of these men was a Reformation of that which so lately had been reformed, taxing it of retaining the faeces and dregs of Romish superstition, as being but superficially and slightly purified.”199 The author then provided a brief history of the machinations and growing power of the Puritan community, until he reached the reign of Charles I, at which point he wrote that “the lenity and good nature of [James I’s] son and successor, Charles the Martyr, afforded them the advantages they had long expected and waited for.”200 Thus, in

197James Heath. A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors Who have endred the Pains and Terrours of Death, Arraignment, Banishment, and Imprisonment, for the Maintenance of the Just and Legal Government of these Kingdoms, both in Church and State. 1665 198 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 2 199Ibid 200 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 4

60 his narrative, rebellion against the monarch was the culmination of the religious discontentedness of the kingdom’s minority faith communities. Heath claimed that this power grab on the part of Charles’ opponents was no accidental or opportunistic development. Rather his enemies “brought about their long projected device of Rebellion and Sacrilege,” which implied that they held political rather than purely religious motives. Heath argued in multiple passages that the King’s opponents were innately rebellious, saying that “the Faction was engaged against all power or authority but that of their own wills.”201 For that reason, then, he said they “set to work to demolish and throw down that goodly structure and fabrick of government, under which this nation had so long flourished upon the support and basis of the three estates, the king , the lords spiritual and temporal.”202 Essentially, Heath argued that the parliamentary opposition wished to tear themselves out from under all the authority figures in English society. A fascinating development in Heath’s monarchist martyrology was his alteration of the concept of emulating the martyrs. In the devotional martyrology The Mirror of Martyrs, as well as in John Foxe’s work, readers were intended to compare themselves to the serenity, devotion and unswerving piety of the martyrs in order to gain confidence of their election. Heath, however, asserted of the Earl of Strafford, whom he called the “proto-martyr” of all the loyalists, that there was only one aspect of his character which could be imitated: his loyalty.203 Fully emulating this martyr was impossible because “all essays describing those great abilities, and comprehensiveness of his mind, are therefore unfeasible, because none but himself could portray them to any appearance of semblance of that life,” so that “he hath left nothing transmittable to our imitation, but his loyalty….his other superexcellent qualities being above our reach and understanding.”204 This rejection of deeply analytical biography of an important martyr was in stark contrast to the works of Foxe and Cotton. They gave in-depth presentations of their martyrs so that readers could make a serious comparison their own spiritual state to theirs. Reviving the martyrological idea of emulating the martyrs, but restricting what traits one ought to strive for allowed Heath to focus on the main purpose of the book: defending royalism. Heath also considered followed William Laud the and two townsmen of Bristol. Of Laud, Heath writes that having heard the sentence of death pronounced against him, “he neither entertained the news with a Stoical apathy, nor wailed his fate with weak and womanish lamentations (to which extremes most men are carried in this case) but heard it with so even and so

201 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 10 202 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 6 – 7 203 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 15 204 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 15 – 16

61 smooth a temper, as shewed he neither was afraid to live, nor ashamed to die.”205 This emphasis on Laud’s constancy in the face of death was, of course, a rhetorical device for bolstering the victim’s identity as a true, rather than false martyr. Heath further extolled Laud as a true martyr by saying that he was “so well prepared in the art of dying…that he was more than half in heaven, before death brought his bloody (but triumphant) chariot.”206 He noted that before the execution day, he “slept very soundly…a most assured sign of a soul prepared.”207 Concluding his long passage on Laud, Heath declared that “he gave a greater blow unto the enemies of God and the King at the hour of his death, than he had given them in his whole life before.”208 Laud had been a staunch supporter of Charles I, and a major target for the parliamentarians as both a symbol and perpetrator of the King’s purported abuses.209 To so pointedly emphasize his sanctity and his pious approach to death was equivalent to justifying the Archbishop’s policies, and by extension, Charles’. Strafford, Laud and the citizens of Bristol were presented in descending order of importance: Strafford, not Laud, was the “proto-martyr” and role model for all loyal subjects. Rather than making the churchman the highest example of piety, Heath chose a man whose career and martyrdom were political. Choosing a state official over a spiritual authority for this central role in his text was something a religious martyrology would never have done. Furthermore, although Laud was highly praised, Heath presented his cause of martyrdom and the result of his death both in relation to the royalist endeavor— his role as a spiritual leader was secondary to his role as a proponent of the monarchy. In keeping with the Augustinian dictum “non poena, sed causa,” this rhetorical emphasis on royalism rather than religion asserted that Laud was not simply a martyred churchman who happened to be loyal to the king, but that he was a martyr because he died for loyalty. Thus, Heath presented Laud’s religious convictions as less relevant than his politics to his identity as a true martyr. Laud’s true piety, according to Heath, was his service to God’s anointed leader, the King. Lastly, the two citizens of Bristol died and were buried “amongst the Honorable” because of their loyalty. These four were emblematic of types in English society, through which Heath asserted what was of central value: loyalty. That emphasis on loyalty as being superior to religious piety was, of course, intended by Heath, a fact which was borne out by the order of the first martyrs in his book. Pride of place was given to the

205Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 63 206 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 64 – 65 207Ibid 208 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 66 209 Anthony Milton, ‘Laud, William (1573–1645)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/16112, accessed 16 May 2011]

62 most overtly political fallen royalist. The Earl of Strafford was presented first, and then the Archbishop, and then the common townspeople. The Earl died for reasons entirely political, the Archbishop for his use of ecclesiastical power to support Charles’ temporal policies, making Laud less directly a martyr to the loyalist cause because he had mixed spiritual and political motives. Therefore, according to Heath, Strafford made for the more exemplary martyr. Further evidence for Heath’s privileging of loyalty above (or as the primary) spiritual virtue is evidenced by Master Robert Yeomans and Master George Bowcher, the townsmen who directly follow Laud in order of discussion. These men died for their allegiance to the monarch, and the author unambiguously made that alone the basis of their martyrological qualifications: “in their death they were numbered among the transgressors, yet (Loyalty being their epitaph) they may make their graves amongst the Honorable.”210 The emphasis in the case of these two citizens is not on their piety, but on their loyalty and respectability as lawful subjects. Their place, coming third in the of martyrs through this book, was significant in that it rounded out a miniature of society: lords temporal, lords spiritual, and the laity, with the cardinal virtue for each being loyalty to the crown. Despite his prioritizing of loyalty above spirituality as the cause of legitimate martyrdom, the fact that Heath’s book was intended to be a martyrology is evident from the author's own admission, when he said that “if I have omitted any out of this martyrology, or have slightly passed them over, it is for want of fuller information.”211 Heath replaced the criteria which Foxe, Clarke and the other religious martyrologists used to determine who was a true martyr. Consequently, he wrote a martyrology, but it was a martyrology which redefined who was a martyr, and why. As with Foxe, and Brice, and Cotton, the author of A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors dedicated his book to a noble patron. Heath, however, devoted his book to three patrons: the sons of the “martyred” earls of Strafford, Derby and Essex, whom he praises as the heir of the three families which most supported Charles I in his quarrel and fall, and who—most significantly—he says “are now risen again in a full and most radiant luster.”212 The dedication of his treatise on the virtue of loyalty to a “triumvirate” of noble families who suffered for their allegiance to the Crown, and then were brought into renewed glory in the Restoration is of the utmost importance in deciphering the outlook of this book. As with Winstanley’s Loyal Martyrology, Heath’s martyrology eventually ended by making the point to the reader that the persecuted have been vindicated and raised up again, thereby proving the righteousness of the royal cause. Heath’s dedication was a calculated use of martyrological discourse

210Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 84 – 85 211 Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, 443 212Heath, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, 1665, “The Epistle Dedicatory”, ii

63 which constructed a way for royalists in the Restoration to co-opt the regicide into a martyrological historiography, and actually reinterpret that event to bolster rather than undermine the royalist position. Another text which conflated righteousness in martyrdom with loyalty to the King was the anonymous pamphlet entitled A Generall Bill of the Mortality of the Clergy of London; or A Brief martyrology and Catalogue of the Learned, Grave, Religious, and Painfull Ministers of the City of London specified that these men suffered “for their constancy in the Protestant Religion, established in this Kingdom and their loyalty to their King, under that Grand Persecution by the Presbyterians.”213 The wording would appear to indicate that this martyrology was primarily concerned with the minister's piety, and only secondarily their loyalty, in that the reverends were called “learned, grave, religious,” but were not praised in the main title for their loyalty.214 The conclusion of this work, however, established the ultimate emphasis of the book. In the final paragraph, the author summed up his work as “a catalogue likewise of those loyal ministers,” and does not mention any other description or praise of them, except that they were the “true Protestant clergy.”215 This summative description shows that, in actuality, the men included in his booklet were simply not a collection of pious ministers among whom some happened to be loyalists, but that loyalty was the main characteristic they all had in common and the reason for which they were included in this martyrology. A feature of this martyrology which is surprising and unique has to do with its format and writing style. Unlike all the other martyrologies considered, in which each martyr received at minimum a paragraph of narrative or description, in this work the format was a mere listing. Each martyr's parish, name, and suffering was written in bare-bones style, or as the author himself said, “written as it were in short hand.”216 This style may be seen, for example, in the mentioning of “St. Peters Pauls wharfe, Mr. Marbury sequestered,” and “St. Margaret Lothbury, Mr. Tabor plundered, imprisoned in the Kings- bench, his wife and children turned out of doors at mid-might, and he sequestered,” and “St. Mary le Bow, Mr Leech sequestered, and dead with grief.”217 It must be noted, however, that these “martyrs” were not executed, but were simply put out of their clerical livings, briefly arrested and imprisoned, and otherwise harassed. Where they are recorded as having died, they did so not at the hand of an

213 Anonymous. A generall bill of the mortality of the clergy of London; or, a brief martyrology and catalogue of the learned, grave, religious, and painfull ministers of the City of London, 1662, i 214 Ibid 215 A General Bill, 1662, 6 216 Ibid 217 A General Bill, 1662, 4, 2

64 executioner but allegedly as a result of exposure and want. In this unusual work, not one “martyr” was deliberately killed. Stylistically, the entire work was virtually a collection of bullet-point entries. Such a stylistic choice on the part of the author is unusual, but is explained by a phrase also in the conclusion, which states that this work was “within the compass of a penny,” referring to its price.218 The author was attempting to reach a wide circulation and to offer readability. In pursuing accessibility through lower prices and greater facility of reading, the post-Foxean martyrologists produced densely indexed books of only about 200 pages, compared to Foxe's circa 2,000-page book. By reducing even further the purchase cost and reading time, the author adapted the approach of the post-Foxean martyrologists to reach an even wider potential readership. The last idiosyncrasy of note in A General Bill was its emphasis on the clergy of London in particular. The conclusion revealed this keen interest by indicating that it cataloged “the tragical and more than barbarous cruelties, exercised upon the true Protestant clergy, as well within as without the Walls and Liberties of London.”219 To particularly focus on the clergy in and around London reveals a non-spiritual, highly politicized argument which the author was subtly developing. By especially descrying the abuses leveled at ministers who resided within the walls of that city, the author to discuss chose men who were entitled to the special privileges and legal liberties of Londoners. Other martyrologists, even authors of politicized works rarely focused on the martyrs of just one region. This author may have chosen ministers persecuted within London, and emphasized their suffering for loyalty because he was really expounding on a usurpation of rights which extended beyond those martyrs' stories. Such an argument, for instance, by highlighting the illegality of a parliament which violated the rights of Londoners, would cast doubt on the parliament’s condemnation of the King, thereby supporting the monarchist cause. This pamphlet was thus highly political in motive. This pamphlet, which would have been circulated by the news-venders who were so much a part of London and who dealt extensively in such publications, was likely produced specifically for the market for works of political polemic which London maintained. This intended audience is revealed by the author's parting comments highlighting the boldness of the persecutors in afflicting ministers within London, the subjects of which had historically enjoyed the greatest liberties in English society. By using the platform of a martyrology to present a list of Londoners whose rights had been violated by the persecuting Presbyterians, the author appealed to a sense of indignation against such transgression of

218 A General Bill, 1662, 6 219 Ibid

65 the “Liberties of London.”220 This, in turn, could be expected to lead the reader to reject the party which was responsible for those persecutions—not because the Presbyterians had afflicted the righteous, but because they had violated rights cherished by all Londoners. This was a political document, through- and-through, regardless of its outward appearance—and claim—to be a martyrology. Yet these ministers were not chosen by the author as martyrs simply because their rights as Londoners were violated, but because they suffered for their loyalty to the king. By instigating outrage at their maltreatment, the author was piggy-backing his support of monarchy on a vindication of the rights of Londoners. Such a subtle and duplicitous discourse in defense of monarchy was also found in another work of royalist rhetoric. The imperative of royalists to defend the traditional social constitution extended beyond the hagiographic renditions of Charles I’s life, and indeed, beyond the defense of monarchy alone. In the martyrology entitled Persecutio Undecima or The Churches Eleventh Persecution, the author (known only as “Chestlin”) crafted a polemic against those who, through the agency of parliament, made changes to English religion after the reign of Elizabeth. The reader soon learns that those whom Chestlin wrote against as “fanaticks” were England’s Puritans, and specifically those reformers empowered as Members of Parliament. The significance of the title is that, in Foxe, and numerous of the religious martyrologies, the Early Church martyrdoms were divided into the “ten persecutions of the primitive times.”221 By stating that the usurpation of power, and subsequent loss of life during the civil wars constituted an “Eleventh Persecution” of the Church, Chestlin was presenting his essay on the “fanaticks” as a reversed martyrology, similarly to Clarke’s Looking-Glass for Persecutors. Just as Clarke’s book chronicled and condemned the actions of the persecutors rather than charting the lives and examples of the afflicted faithful, so also Chestlin’s text centered on exposing the persecutors rather than immortalizing the fallen righteous. Of critical importance in Persecutio Undecima was the strong association between governmental and spiritual power (and therefore the link between spiritual and political martyrdom) which the author carefully assembled throughout this text. Chestlin stated that the chief end of the fanatical Puritans was to undermine the political authority of the King by eroding the authority of the ecclesiastical leaders. He claimed that “by wounding the King through the sides of the Church, as knowing well, that if they could destroy Monarchy in the Church (Episcopal Government in England, being indeed the King's Spiritual 220 Ibid 221 Jacob Bauthumley, A brief historical relation of the most material passages and persecutions of the church of Christ, from the death of our Saviour, to the time of William the Conqueror collected out of the Acts and monuments of the church, written by Mr. Foxe and compiled in the three first books of the said Book of martyrs, written by the same author, Ed. 1676, vi

66 Militia, and that most powerful, as commanding the Consciences of Subjects) by planting in Rebellion for Religion, they should soon weaken the Power of the King's Temporal Militia.”222 The author characterized the ostensibly spiritual agenda of reforming the Church of England as being hypocritical. He claimed that the complaint “O ye scandalous clergy and O ye bringers in of popery!” was actually aimed not at ridding the Anglican Church of the vestiges of Roman Catholicism.223 Rather, he said that reformist outcry was about removing the authoritarian structures of the Church in order to supplant all authority in the realm, spiritual and temporal (i.e., monarchical).224 No matter how martyrological the rhetorical elements of this book were, no work of martyrology would be complete without some kind of list of sufferers. Persecutio Undecima did incorporate such a list. The author reproduced in full the anonymous martyrology A Generall Bill of the Mortality of the Clergy of London, which implicitly argued that the men put out of their ecclesiastical offices in London were martyrs because of their adherence to the crown rather than to their faith. Chestlin argued similarly that the “fanaticks” were persecutors who used pretence of religious reform to bring about a political revolution. He spent most of his book charting their undermining of what he felt was true Christian religion. His inclusion of a catalog of martyrs, in the form of the A General Bill of the Mortality of the Clergy of London implied that true Christianity involved loyalty to the king. His ultimate point was that overturning the monarchy was wrongdoing. The ministers who were ejected from their pulpits were the overt martyrs of the persecution described in this text. The monarchy, however, was the actual victim in and subject of Chestlin’s explication of the alleged “Eleventh Persecution.” Chestlin’s accusation was also made clear in a passage in which he quoted John Hampden, “one of the prime Grandees of the Fanatick Faction,” as giving an answer to a friend, “asking him why they so much pretended Religion, when indeed Liberty and Property, and Temporal Matters were by them chiefly intended?”225 Mr. Hampden allegedly replied, saying “should we not (said he) use the pretence of Religion, the people would not be drawn to assist us.”226 Chestlin believed that the current Parliament conspired to wrest power away from King and Church, endowing that power to itself instead. According to the author, the king’s opponents undermined authority in the church by causing the laity to despise the clergy. They did this with their allegations that the Church of England retained

222 Chestlin. Persecutio undecima, or, The churches eleventh persecution being a brief of the fanatick persecution of the Protestant clergy of the Church of England, more particularly within the city of London : begun in Parliament, Anno Dom. 1641, and printed in the year 1648. (Ed. 1681), 4. 223 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 4 – 5 224 Ibid 225Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 3 226 Ibid

67 aspects of Roman Catholicism. In addition, they claimed that “the Bishops and the Clergy were the Instruments for the Kings intended Tyranny.”227 Chestlin elaborated that the reasoning behind their accusation was that “the Clergy are all for the King,” and that “the King and the Bishops had abused their trust, intending to ruin the Kingdom, and destroy Religion.”228 Chestlin said that, to the “fanaticks,” not only were the clergy dangerous for being so close to the King, but their pride and pretentiousness also made them odious.229 Numerous statements to this effect all drove home the author’s claim that parliamentary opposition undermined the public’s opinion of, and trust in the English clergy. Chestlin was not exposing a source of anti-clericalism in English society—for anti-clericalism had been rampant since the late Middle Ages—but was assembling a defense of ecclesiastical authority. He would use that argument to defend royal authority on the premise that God instituted authoritarian government in the state because He did so in the church. The emphasis on the loss of proper church authority was evident in the writer’s lengthy and repeated railings at the usurpation of discretion in forming doctrine. Of these “fanaticks” he wrote that “vox Populi est vox Dei, was their beloved unquestionable Oracle.”230 He said their idea “that all power of the Church in Doctrine and Discipline should be originally in the people (that is, the rude multitude) is a new opinion framed by affection, and made Religion by politick engagements, only to serve the present designs.”231 To the student of martyrology, the accusation that vox populi est vox dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) was “a new opinion…to serve the present designs” should smack of the accusations of innovation in religion which John Foxe refuted in Acts and Monuments. By accusing the “fanaticks” of being a new faction, Chestlin argued that these MPs were not among the faithful, but were heretics. Therefore, their use of violence was a persecution against those who truly were faithful Christians. The object of these accusations of heresy was not to reform English religion, but English politics, by consistently arguing in favor of hierarchical authority instead of rule by popular will. The author repeatedly hammered on the idea that democratic government was never the model used in the Early Church: the priests were not subject to the people, “nor did the people teach the Apostles, but surely the Apostles taught the people, and Ruled over the people in Word and Doctrine; since to them Christ gave the Keys.”232 Again, the author emphasized that the “fanaticks” were perverting the authority structure of the church, stating hierarchical government “was the established Law of the Christian

227Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 5 228 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 20 229 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 6 – 7 230 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 20 231 Ibid 232 Ibid

68 world; the benefit whereof St. Ambrose pleaded against Auxentius.”233 The author also cited a string of Biblical precedents concerning church governance, and invoked Luther to make the point that the laity did not have the right to dictate to their ecclesiastical rulers what form of church government they will have, nor what doctrines. The parallel of the author's argument to the royalist complaint against parliament's usurpation of the King's authority was inescapable. To make his case even more bluntly, Chestlin elaborated on the ill effects of Puritan ascendancy. He plainly said that “all wise men (even among Protestants) see that no Sect in the world can be more prejudicial and pernicious to another than the Puritan Sect is, and would be to the Protestant, if they could get the upper hand.”234 The author then explained that assertion by invoking the memory of the Marian persecutions, stating that although “these are the men who so fiercely have cried out against persecution, and against the cruelty of Papists, making an Ordinance for Repentance, for the Blood spilt in the days of Queen Mary,” it is they who “whose cruelty...hath slain more thousands of English Subjects, than Queen Mary condemned scores.”235 It is evident from this statement alone that Chestlin was comparing the acts of the reformers in Parliament with the obviously religious persecution which Mary Tudor exercised against Protestants, thereby also condemning the reformers’ political machinations against the King. He used a martyrological condemnation of the “fanaticks” innovation in religion, and persecution of the faithful to propound a royalist political agenda. Chestlin’s final chapter made this rhetorical objective plain, in that it was titled “A concluding Parallel between the Popish Persecution in Queen Maries time, and this Fanatical persecution.”236 Clearly, then, Chestlin wanted the reader to see the “fanatick” Puritans as persecutors. For instance, the author said that they were guilty of “entitling their Faction only to those [Marian] martyrs merits, as their undoubted Heirs; indeed cunningly to colour their pretence of fighting for the Protestant Religion,” whereas “were those [Marian] Martyrs now alive, they would be the greatest Malignants and Delinquents of our days, fit to be Plundered, Sequestered, Banished, Imprisoned, or Slain by bloody Votes, because they would not obey the Parliament in changing Religion.”237 In reality, however, he said that “the design only was for this Faction, hereby to raise an Army, to execute whatsoever themselves should conceive would advance their Plots of subverting Religion and Government of this Church and State, under the specious colour of Reformation of all grievances

233Ibid 234Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 35 235Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 35 – 36 236 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 36 237Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 35

69 whatsoever.”238 Conspiracy theory or no, the author used definitively martyrological concepts in propounding his views, for the identification of persecuted and persecutor, and true and false martyrs, had always been a primary concern of the martyrology. The identification of a religio-political party as being an agent of persecution in itself carried heavy meaning in martyrological discourse. The identity of whom they persecuted, however, was even more intriguing. The author further elaborated on his theme of puritanical persecution, saying that they “enrage the people to a revenge on the Kings Party, whom they laboured to make the world believe, were the guilty off-spring of those Popish Persecutors; whereas like the Jews, while they build the Sepulchres of the Prophets, they show themselves to be the Sons of those who persecuted the Prophets.”239 The author was not complaining that they aroused the people to persecute any particular faith community, as seen in the contemporary religious martyrologies, but to persecute “the King's Party.” The victims—the martyrs—of this persecution by the “fanaticks” were those who adhered to the belief that vested authority figures were legitimate and God-given, and refused to bow to Parliament's usurpations in affairs both of religion and state. In other words, the author's martyrs were thinly veiled royalist partisans. A fascinating feature of this text was its method of continuing the martyrological attention to persecutors getting their comeuppance, as Chestlin examined the fates of numerous of those who afflicted the royalists. Writing that those who “kindled the fire [of persecution] ... as since hath burned the Kindler's own Nests,” the author notes that the “the Lord Digby [was] proclaimed Traytor, banished, and made the publick hatred of the Fanaticks,” and that “the Lord Faulkland [was] killed at Newberry Fight,” and “Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes condemned to die by Martial Law, for the good service he had done the Parliament his Masters.”240 He also said that “Sir Edward Deering, who made this motion in the House of Commons with great applause, to burn the late Canons, (made in the Convocation, and stamped with the King's Authority) by the -makers own Hands; not long after had those same his Speeches burned by the publick Hangman, [was] himself expelled the House, and forced to fly the Fury of the People under a Priest's Coat,” along with others who were active in the Parliament's persecutions —all having come to ruin.241 Portraying retribution against persecutors was a key rhetorical device demonstrating that the martyrs were right and their persecutors wrong. Chestlin’s book shared that focus. What is curious

238Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 34 – 35 239 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 36 240 Chestlin, Persecutio Undecima, 1681, 9 241Ibid

70 about this document, however, is that none of these “persecutors” came under divine retribution directly, but only through the actions of the state, dying (if they did die) either by warfare or execution. According to Clarke, Bauthumley and their contemporaries, the crimes of religious persecutors were against God, and God returned them justice. But here in this Perscutio Undecima, also titled The Churches Eleventh Persecution, the state replaced the church as the ultimate recipient of the persecution, and replaced God as the eventual arbiter of retribution. Thus, the author crafted a discourse of vindication for royalism, and a way to look forward to the ultimate downfall of those who rejected the authority of the King and the extension of his authority in the bishops and ecclesiastical authorities. Within the many layers to this text is a concerted attempt to utilize the hallmarks of anti- persecution martyrology. These elements, after being passed through a political lens, reinforced royalism in the public discourse.

Part IV – the Rebel Writer Although the vast majority of politicized martyrologies were royalist, one notable exception existed. Written in 1689, at the very tail end of the martyrological boom of the seventeenth century, John Tutchin’s book A New Martyrology presents a stark contrast to the royalist writings of Winstanley, Heath and company. For Tutchin, the great scene of martyrdom shifted from the violence of the civil wars to events more contemporary with his own historical moment.242 All of Tutchin’s martyrs were drawn from the years 1678 to 1689.243 The significance of his choices of martyrs was not that they were recent, but that almost without exception they all were indicted and executed as traitors. Tutchin claimed that these men died for their resistance to a resurgence of Roman Catholicism in England. He described them as those “whose free-born souls spurn at a slavish chain;/ Souls (not so senseless, so supine as ours)/ That early saw the drift of Romish Powers,/ Early disdain’d those yokes with generous scorn, which our more servile necks have tamely born.”244 His first two martyrs Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey and one Mr. Arnold, were both believed to have been assassinated by pro- Catholic partisans. Similar to how the Earl of Strafford was made out to be the proto-martyr of all who died in Charles I’s service, Tutchin gave pride of place to a particular martyr, Godfrey. Tutchin arranged

242 J. A. Downie, ‘Tutchin, John (1660x64–1707)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/27899, accessed 18 May 2011] 243John Tutchin. A new martyrology, or, The bloody assizes now exactly methodized in one volume : comprehending a compleat history of the lives, actions, trials, sufferings, dying speeches, letters, and prayers of all those eminent martyrs who fell in the west of England, and elsewhere, from the year 1678 to 1689 : with the pictures of several of the most eminent of them in copper plates : to this treatise is added, The life and death of George Lord Jeffryes. 1689. ( Ed. 1693) 244 Tutchin, A New Martyrology, Ed. 1693, i

71 his list of martyrs so that this man came first, and presented his portrait first among a short-list of those who were the most famous of his martyrs. He thereby implied that he was representative of or the greatest among the other martyrs to follow in the course of the book—because Godfrey was undoubtedly murdered, and was politically quite tame.245By appending all the martyrs convicted of treason after Godfrey and Arnold who had died by extra-legal means, Tutchin was putting the emphasis on dying for resistance to Catholicism, rather than resistance to the state. A chief concern of martyrology was always to prove the righteousness of the victims, by demonstrating that they died for the true faith. In trying to justify the political actions of his martyrs, what Tutchin did, however, was to reinterpret the actions of these men, who were primarily motivated by political concerns. He posited that the primary reason for their martyrdoms was their standing up for the true faith, rather than their treason to legitimate royal authority. Sir Thomas Armstrong, for instance, was deeply involved in the Monmouth rebellion and the conspiracy to bar James II from the succession, even to the point of being at least aware of, if not outright involved in an assassination plot against James.246 Tutchin, however, said of the traitor that he was “a man of good sense, and a good Christian,” who “dy’d a sincere Protestant” and repeated Armstrong’s testimony that “he never had a thought to take away the King’s Life, and that no man ever had the impudence to propose so barbarous and base a thing to him; and that he never was in any design to alter the government.”247 Tutchin’s portrait of this and other executed traitors in his alleged martyrology was a gross mis-representation of their motives and actions, but it allowed Tutchin to find a redeeming quality in them by which he could legitimize them, and therefore by extension, their resistance to the government. This unscrupulous reinterpretation of Tutchin’s is reminiscent of Ambrose Rigge and Elias Hooke’s insistence that the Early Church martyrs had died solely or primarily for Quaker convictions. Both those martyrologists delved through the records of Eusebius and John Foxe and asserted that, whenever a martyr refused to swear or show respect of persons, it was for that particular act that they were executed. In reality, although they may have also refused to swear, or once said something against taking oaths, the actual doctrinal grounds on which most Early Church martyrs were condemned had nothing to do with the beliefs that set Quakers apart from other Protestants. Likewise, Tutchin’s martyrs

245Alan Marshall, ‘Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry (1621–1678)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/10868, accessed 18 May 2011] 246 Richard L. Greaves, ‘Armstrong, Sir Thomas (bap. 1633, d. 1684)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/665, accessed 29 July 2011] 247 Tutchin, A New Martyrology, 131 – 132

72 were condemned for reasons of state, and violation of secular laws. That an effect of their rebellion may have been that they resisted a Catholic monarch did not necessarily make their cause actually, in terms of motive, focused on resistance to Catholicism rather than resistance to an undesired monarch, who happened to be Catholic. Tutchin, however, argued that resisting a Catholic monarch necessarily stemmed from an anti-Catholic motive. As with the religious martyrologists, Tutchin’s drive to reinterpret the acts of a collage of men executed for treason is made comprehensible by his biography. As stated earlier, nearly all of the martyrs in A New Martyrology were involved in treasonous plots, either in the , or in the Monmouth Rebellion, specifically. Among those indicted and convicted of involvement in the Monmouth Rebellion was John Tutchin. J.A. Downie notes that “according to Tutchin's own account he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, to pay a fine of 100 marks, and to find surety for his good behaviour for the rest of his life,” but that to this was added the particularly harsh punishment of being “whipped through all the market towns of Dorset once a year,” as an example.248 In light of his experience of punishment, Tutchin’s martyrology can be seen as paralleling the religious martyrologies which descried persecution that their authors had also suffered. Similarly to those martyrologists who were motivated to write against persecution because they had experienced the brunt of such affliction, John Tutchin compiled a martyrology which vindicated as having had righteous motives a number of his compatriots in rebellion. The coincidence of Tutchin’s personal experience and the nature of his “martyrs” supports the overall observation that anti-authority martyrologies, whether religious or political, tended to be written by persons who had personally experienced the hand of the law against them. Tutchin’s participation in the Monmouth Rebellion is essential to unpacking the significance of his work to the larger phenomenon of martyrological publishing in the seventeenth century. Tutchin’s anti-persecution and anti-royalist martyrology may seem to break the pattern that political martyrologists were laboring to reconstruct their identities, by negotiating the trauma of the regicide through a narrative of vindication, but in fact the opposite is true. By rehabilitating a troupe of traitors with whom Tutchin himself was allied and complicit, he simultaneously justified himself. Although he did not specifically mention his own sufferings in this book, the logical extension of his argument about these martyrs would be that he himself was also a sufferer for righteousness—a “confessor,” if not an outright “martyr.” Self-justification was an understandable impulse for someone sentenced to be publically flogged through every major town in his county every year for the rest of his life. That this

248Downie, “Tutchin”

73 ignominy represented a significant motivation for Tutchin to defend his reputation may be derived from his appeal to the judge to have the sentence of yearly flogging reduced—to hanging.249 In each of these texts, then, it is evident that the martyrological genre, when used for purposes other than its original religious purposes within Protestantism, as laid down by Foxe, served to bolster the political and ideological security of the writer’s self and party. These works kept the majority of martyrological conventions, and yet replaced key elements, such as the nature of non poena sed causa, in order to argue that persons who died in action, or for actions performed for the state, deserved to be deemed martyrs. There was a high degree of conflation of duty to King and fidelity to God, as the writers asserted that to obey the King was to uphold God’s appointed order. Overall, however, as the institution of monarchy was not maintained as a spiritual doctrine, but as a social ordinance of God, the martyrological discourse as a whole saw a trend toward secularization in the seventeenth century. The meaning of the term “martyr” became much looser in these works, able to either include or exclude a particular faith-community or political faction, as per the authors’ own orientation and experience. Religious devotion was replaced in many works by political devotion, and the very definition of a martyr was changed. In seventeenth-century martyrology, one need not even have died to be called a martyr. If one did die, the cause for which they died did not need to have been solely faith-based, as political platforms became an additional cause for which could die and be hailed a martyr.

Conclusion

Both the religious and political martyrologies of the seventeenth century shared a feeling of being threatened or marginalized. The non-conformist martyrologists wrote largely from the impetus of their own experience of persecution, and the royalist martyrologists took up the pen likewise out of a sense of insecurity. The former were more in line with the original subject of martyrology: the affliction of a minority religious group at the hands of a more powerful one. Royalists writing in the Restoration still felt threatened, only for them the danger was to their identity and not of their persons or religious practice. The resort to martyrology may be seen as a defensive move, then. The two social elements (non-conformists and royalists) which produced the boom in martyrological writing during the seventeenth century were both defending themselves against threats to their continued existence, whether tangible or perceived. In this respect they followed Foxe himself, who had attempted to defend Protestantism against allegations of illegitimacy made by Catholics.

249Ibid

74 What is truly surprising about these related sub-genres is that the creation of political martyrology, much more heavily adapted from Foxe than post-Foxean religious martyrology, actually preceded the production of new religious martyrology. One would expect that the first developments in martyrology would have related more directly to the prototypical Acts and Monuments. In fact the mid- seventeenth century surge in martyrology began with the politicized works and was then joined by and continued alongside of the religious martyrologies. With the exception of Clement Cotton’s 1613 book Mirror of Martyrs, which was a strictly devotional martyrology, and the 1599 pamphlet-poem by Thomas Brice praising Queen Elizabeth as the long-awaited deliverer from the Marian persecution, the first anti-Anglican-persecution martyrologies did not see production until 1651. This sizable gap in the publication record of religious martyrology, between the 1613 Mirror of Martyrs and the 1651 General Martyrology, is remarkable when one compares the publication dates of the earliest politicized martyrologies, which appeared in 1648 and 1649. No martyrologies were produced for the thirty-five years between Cotton’s work and 1648 except reprints of the demi-institutional Acts and Monuments in 1632 and 1641. The first impetus for revisiting the genre of the martyrology with the publication of new works came from the events of the late phases of the civil wars and the King’s execution. With the year 1657, there was a parallel publication spurt in both politicized and religious martyrologies, as shown in the chart below:

Table II. 1600 1613 1648-9 1657 1660s 1676-77 1689 ||------|||--||------|______Political |------|------|-----|---|-|-|---|------||______Religious

In this diagram, each dash represents a non-publication year, and each vertical bar represents a work produced for that genre. As can be seen from the chart, the proportionate chronological distance between Cotton’s 1613 and Samuel Clark’s 1651 religious martyrologies is remarkable in comparison to the rapid succession of works produced in the narrow band of years between 1657 and 1669. This gap was even larger and more striking when one considers that Cotton’s work is entirely devotional, and says nothing to condemn persecution—a rhetorical element common to all the subsequent religious martyrologies. The earliest post-Foxean martyrology which addressed persecution and condemned the persecutor was Brice’s 1599 work. The eighteen years, then, between 1651 and 1669 saw six new works of polemical religious martyrology, whereas the previous fifty-two had seen none. What accounts for

75 this significant development? The first politicized martyrologies of 1648 – 1649 substantially predated the concurrent waves of writing in both the politicized and religious genres, another important aspect of the publication pattern. The period of 1649 – 1657 was a hiccup in the timeline of martyrology’s resurgence as a genre of expression for socio-political and religious angst. The 1649 – 1658 Commonwealth and Protectorate period were evidently not conducive to the writing of martyrologies, as evidenced by the near-total cessation in the writing of either politicized or religious works.250 This is curious in regard to the gap in politicized martyrologies, for it is evident that their cause was rooted in the events surrounding the defeat and demise of the monarch. For, if the regicide was still a topic for discussion and condemnation in the years 1660, 1661, 1662 and 1665—which it was, judging by the politicized martyrologies published in those years—then surely the fate of Charles I was a potent reason to publish royalist martyrologies during 1649 to 1657, and perhaps all the more pressing for the recentness of that memory, and the urge to contemn Cromwell and the government’s ongoing usurpation in those years. Political barriers to the production of such royalist martyrologies—and nearly all the politicized martyrologies were royalist—during this period must explain their relative absence. Politicized martyrology began when it did for reasons of the profound political happenings of that time, and it likely would have continued during the Commonwealth and Protectorate just as it did afterwards if it were not for the dangers of openly expressing royalist views after 1649. The emergence of the post-Foxean religious martyrologies also awaited the close of the Protectorate (with the exception of Clark’s work). The first work of these works was also published in 1657, the same year as the first politicized martyrology. Although Clarke’s work, A Generall Martyrologie, was published in 1651, it did not shatter the pattern of both religious and political martyrologies having been repressed by the regime, due to the unique positioning of the author. Nearly all of the writers of religious martyrology in the mid- seventeenth century were ejected nonconformist ministers, who then took up their pen to denounce religious persecution. While Clarke was, himself, of the nonconformist stripe, and was a royalist in his political leanings, he “was one of those moderate Presbyterians (like Thomas Manton or Stephen Marshall) who was prepared to work with the Cromwellian regime,” thereby ameliorating the antagonism that would otherwise have existed between himself and the ruling powers both secular and ecclesiastical.251

250Johann Sommerville. “Commonwealth and Protectorate: 1649 – 1658,” accessed April 21, 2011 http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-29.htm 251 Ann Hughes, ‘Clarke, Samuel (1599–1682)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004;

76 Clarke had an extensive background of public involvement in political matters and continued that career even after the advent of the Commonwealth and Protectorate.252 In fact, among his public roles during the 1650s, Clarke “acted as an assistant to the London commissioners for the ejecting of ‘scandalous’ ministers in 1654.”253 This appointment demonstrates that Clarke's position in relation to the government at the time gave him an advantage over the ministers who were being expelled. Clarke’s martyrology was exceptional because of his position as an agent of what later writers would term persecution, thereby giving himself a measure of immunity to official censorship of his writings. By reason of his cooperation with the government's agenda against the Church of England, Clarke had access to publication during the 1650s that others who would later embrace the genre did not. Studying the trajectory of publications revealed causes for the upsurge in the genre’s appeal and usefulness to the English public. Foxe’s tome saw regular reprints from 1563 to 1641, and then abruptly vanished from the publishing houses for over forty years. Precisely during this time the two new types of Anglophone martyrology emerged and burgeoned. The heyday of these martyrologies ended almost exactly when Foxe reemerged onto the scene of publication. Foxe was replaced for a time because his work did not address the intra-Protestant dialectic of dissent. When the social-political conditions which prompted the resort to martyrology dwindled, Foxe again became relevant and was again taken up for publication, albeit with less frequency than during the period 1563 to 1632 when he was the sole martyrologist writing in English. The martyrologies produced between 1640 and 1689 were overwhelmingly preoccupied with arguments directed at opposing communities within Protestantism. Foxe’s work was based on a simpler view of Protestantism, focusing as it did on justifying that faith against Catholicism. Whether the dissent was over conformity to the Church of England or over the position of the monarchy, the nature of martyrological discourse had changed. No longer did the Foxean defense of Protestantism in general hold, because multiple Protestantisms divided both along spiritual and political lines. Anglophone martyrology began to look inward, to internal conflicts within England. Political martyrology arose first and religious martyrology branched out afterward, because political events spurred them both, and more immediately precipitated a response in kind: political for politics. Developments in the government necessarily also affected matters of religion, but this was, in the middle-seventeenth century, the secondary concern of the English state, the first being its composition: royal or republican. Religious martyrologies were also less directly connected to the political turmoil of the 1650s than were the politicized martyrologies. Consequently, although they were online edn, May 2007 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5528, accessed 21 April 2011] 252Ibid. 253Ibid.

77 also censored, the religious martyrologies saw two works (one of them being Clarke’s) published during the Commonwealth and Protectorate era. Thus, the political martyrologies emerged first as a reaction to political events, and the religious martyrologies came second because of the redefinitions of orthodoxy and renovations in state religion which caused ejections of ministers. Each was a response to some form of threat, and each adapted martyrology to specific rhetorical ends. This genre, then, constituted a flexible and powerful mode of writing by which suppressed communities and ideologies in seventeenth century England could express their discontent, strengthen their identity, and negotiate their relationships to each other and to the mainstream of society. Beginning with Foxe as a response to a specific religious threat, Anglophone martyrology opened up to become a rhetorical platform available to an increasingly diverse range of movements and ideas.

78 Bibliography of Primary Sources

Anonymous. An Elegie on the meekest of men, the most glorious of princes, the most constant of martyrs, Charles the I. 1649

Anonymous. Martyrologia alphabetikē, or, An alphabetical martyrology containing the tryals and dying expressions of many martyrs of note since Christ : extracted out of Foxe's Acts and monuments of the church : with an alphabetical list of God's judgements remarkably shown on many noted and cruel persecutors : together with an appendix of things pertinent to martyrology by N.T., M.A.T.C.C. [i.e. Master of Arts Trinity College Cambridge]. Ed. 1677.

Anonymous. A generall bill of the mortality of the clergy of London; or, a brief martyrology and catalogue of the learned, grave, religious, and painfull ministers of the City of London who have been imprisoned, plundered, and barbarousl[y] used, and deprived of all livelihood for themselve[s] and their families, in the late rebellion, for their constancy in the Protestant religion, established in this kingdom[,] and their loyalty to their King, under that great persecution by the Presbyterians. 1662.

Bauthumley, Jacob. A brief historical relation of the most material passages and persecutions of the church of Christ, from the death of our Saviour, to the time of William the Conqueror collected out of the Acts and monuments of the church, written by Mr. Foxe and compiled in the three first books of the said Book of martyrs, written by the same author. Ed. 1676.

Billingsley, Nicholas, Brachy-martyrologia, or, A breviary of all the greatest persecutions which have befallen the saints and people of God from the creation to our present times. 1657.

Brice, Thomas. A briefe register in meter containing the names and patient suffrings of the martyrs [and] members of Iesus Christ, afflicted, tormented, and cruelly burned here in England, in ye time of Q. Marie, together with the yeere, moneth, day, and place of their martyrdoms. 1599.

Burrough, Edward, Persecution impeached as a traytor against God, his laws and government and the cause of the antient martyrs vindicated against the cruelty inflicted upon them by the papists in former dayes : being a brief answer to a book called Semper iidem, or, A parallel of phanaticks &c. lately published by a nameless author. 1661.

Clarke, Samuel. A generall martyrologie containing a collection of all the greatest persecutions which have befallen the church of Christ from the creation to our present times. 1651.

Clarke, Samuel. A looking-glass for persecutors containing multitudes of examples of God's severe, but righteous judgments, upon bloody and merciless haters of His children in all times, from the beginning of the world to this present age : collected out of the sacred Scriptures, and other ecclesiastical writers, both ancient and modern. 1674.

Charles I.[disputed] Eikon Basilike: The Pourtracture of his Sacred Majestie in His Solitudes and Sufferings. London, 1649.

79 Chestlin. Persecutio undecima, or, The churches eleventh persecution being a brief of the fanatick persecution of the Protestant clergy of the Church of England, more particularly within the city of London : begun in Parliament, Anno Dom. 1641, and printed in the year 1648. Ed. 1681.

Cotton, Clement, The mirror of martyrs in a short vieuu lively expressing the force of their faith, the feruency of their loue, the wisedome of their sayings, the patience of their suffrings, etc. : with their prayers and preparation for their last farevvell : whereunto is added two godly letters written by M. Bradford, full of sweet consolation for such as are afflicted in conscience. Ed. 1613.

Foxe, John. Actes and Monumentes Touching Things Done and Practised by the Prelats of the Romishe Churche, Specially in this Realme of England and Scotland, from the Yeare of Our Lord a Thousand vnto the Tyme Nowe Present. (Ed. 1563), 5, http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/main/pref_1563_0005.jsp

Heath, James. A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs and Confessors Who have endred the Pains and Terrours of Death, Arraignment, Banishment, and Imprisonment, for the Maintenance of the Just and LegalGovernment of these Kingdoms, both in Church and State. 1665.

Hookes, Ellis, The Spirit of Christ, and the spirit of the Apostles and the spirit of the martyrs is arisen, which beareth testimony against swearing and oaths, for which the martyrs suffered in the time of the ten persecutions and some since, which we also, the people of God called Quakers, do suffer for, as many thousands have done, for keeping the commands of Christ who saith, swear not at all and also, here you may see such martyrs as could not put off their hat or bonnet to the Pope, nor his legate, and as example of one martyr that could not give sureties, being innocent, so that you may see in this book following, to swear not at all, nor to take oaths, nor to deny putting off the hat or bonnet, nor to deny giving sureties being innocent is no new thing, which is proved out of the Scriptures and book of martyrs. 1661.

Hookes, Ellis, The spirit of the martyrs is risen and the spirit of the old persecuter is risen and manifest, several things being taken out of the Book of martyrs which they suffered for : 1. For working on Holy dayes ... 2. For eating flesh in Lent ... 3. For not going to church ... 4. For speaking in the steeple-houses 5. For meeting together in houses, woods ... 6. For not paying tithes ... 7. For saying any place was as holy ground to bury in as the church-yard, and 8. For saying that the gift of God could not be bought nor sold for money. 1665.

Phillips, Fabian. The royall martyr. Or, King Charles the First no man of blood but a martyr for his people Being a brief account of his actions from the beginnings of the late unhappy warrs, untill he was basely butchered to the odium of religion, and scorn of all nations, before his pallace at White-Hall, Jan. 30. 1648. To which is added, A short history of His Royall Majesty Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. third monarch of Great Brittain. 1657.

Rigge, Ambrose. The good old way and truth which the ancient Christians many ages and generations ago witnessed unto in the world from age to age, even from the dayes of Christ unto this very time, wherein the same doctrine, life and practice is witnessed unto by us who are in contempt called Quakers, through many tribulations, which our ancestors, the most ancient and true Christians that ever were upon the earth, sealed unto, with the loss of their lives and liberties, by

80 which, in short, is fully manifested, in what is treated of herein, that the doctrine of the Quakers, in denying to swear any oath, and their refusing to pay tythes, and many other things they practise, was the doctrine and practise of the most famous and renowned Christians, both testified of in the Scriptures of truth, and the books of martyrs. 1669.

Tutchin, John. A new martyrology, or, The bloody assizes now exactly methodized in one volume : comprehending a compleat history of the lives, actions, trials, sufferings, dying speeches, letters, and prayers of all those eminent martyrs who fell in the west of England, and elsewhere, from the year 1678 to 1689 : with the pictures of several of the most eminent of them in copper plates : to this treatise is added, The life and death of George Lord Jeffryes. 1689. Ed. 1693.

Winstanley, William. The loyall martyrology, or, Brief catalogues and characters of the most eminent persons who suffered for their conscience during the late times of rebellion either by death, imprisonment, banishment, or sequestration together with those who were slain in the Kings service : as also dregs of treachery : with the catalogue and characters of those regicides who sat as judges on our late dread soveraign of ever blessed memory : with others of that gang, most eminent for villainy. London, 1665.

Young, Robert. A breviary of the later persecutions of the professors of the gospel of Jesus Christ, under the Romish and antichristian prelates through Christendome from the time of John Wickliff in the year of God 1371, to the raign of Queen Elizabeth of England, and the reformation of religion in Scotland : and of the cruell persecution of the Christians under the Turkish empetors [sic] .../ collected out of the Ecclesiasticall history and Book of martyrs, by Mr. Robert Young. Ed.1663.

Bibliography of Primary Sources used for Comparative Purposes

Anonymous. Martyrology, or, A brief account of the lives, sufferings and deaths of those two holy martyrs, viz. Mr. John Rogers, and Mr. John Bradford who suffered for the Gospel, by the bloody tyranny, rage and persecution of the Church of Rome, in the kingdom of England, under the reign of Queen Mary, and were burnt at Smithfield, the former on the 14th of February 1554, the latter July 1st 1555–1736. 1732.

Anonymous. The book of martyrs; or, Christian martyrology containing an authentic and historical account of many dreadful persecutions against the church of Christ in different parts of the world. ... With accounts of very singular judgments against persecutors, a variety of anecdotes, and many curious memoirs. The whole forming an interesting history of persecutions, “Selected from the works of Fox, Cave, Southwell, Wright, &c."1795.

Anonymous. The History of Ten Persecutions of the Primitive Church, to which is Added an Account of the Martyrdom of John Huss and Jerome of Prague. Extracted from the Martyrology of Mr John Fox.” Edinburgh : printed by John Gray and Gavin Alston, in Jackson's Close opposite to the City-Guard. For Andrew Leslie. Sold by him, and the Booksellers in Town and Country, MDCCLXI. [1761]. 1761.

81 Challoner, Richard. A memorial of ancient British piety or, a British martyrology. Giving a short account of all such Britons as have been honoured of old amongst the saints; ... To which is annexed, a translation of two ancient Saxon manuscripts, relating to the burying places of the English saints. 1761.

Dunton, John. The Devil's martyrs: or, plain dealing, in answer to the Jacobite speeches of ... William Paul ... and John Hall. ... To which is added, The high-church martyrology: ... Written by Mr. John Dunton. 1716.

Mall, Thomas. The History of the martyrs epitomised a cloud of witnesses, or, the sufferers mirrour : made up of the swanlike songs, and other choice passages of a great number of martyrs and confessors, to the end of the sixteenth century, in their treatises, speeches, letters, prayers, &c. in their prisons, or exiles, at the bar, or stake, &c. : collected out of the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Fox, Fuller, Clark, Petrie, Scotland, and Mr. Samuel Ward's Life of faith in death, &c. 1747.

Mason, Thomas. The book of martyrs: or, the history of the Church from the beginning of Christianity, to the conclusion of the reign of Q. Mary I. ... Extracted from the three large volumes of ... Mr. John Fox, and divers other books; by the Rev. Mr. Thomas Mason, ... And now rendered into modern English, ... by the compiler of the Original Institution of the Church of England. 1747.

Southwell, Henry .The new book of martyrs or complete Christian martyrology. Containing an authentic and genuine historical account of the many dreadful persecutions against the Church of Christ, in all parts of the world, ... By the Reverend Henry Southwell,. 1765.

Wilson, John. The English martyrologe containing a summary of the most renowned and illustrious saints of the three kingdoms England, Ireland, & Scotland. 1640.

Bibliography of Secondary Sources

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.

Achinstein, Sharon, ‘Billingsley, Nicholas (bap. 1633, d. 1709)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2396, accessed 23 Feb 2011].

Asch, Ronald G, ‘Elizabeth, Princess (1596–1662)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/8638, accessed 12 Aug 2011]

Bozeman, Theodore. To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

82 Brigden, Susan. New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors 1485 – 1603. New York: Viking, 2000.

Boyarin, . Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and . Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Coster, Will and Andrew Spicer. Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe. Introduction. Cambridge University Press: 2005. de Groot, Jerome. Royalist Identities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Downie, J. A. ‘Tutchin, John (1660x64–1707)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/27899, accessed 18 May 2011].

Gill, Catie. ‘Burrough, Edward (1633–1663)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/4103, accessed 7 June 2011].

John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. “Transcriptions.” Humanities Research Institute. University of Sheffield. http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/transcript.html

Greaves, Richard L. ‘Armstrong, Sir Thomas (bap. 1633, d. 1684)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/665, accessed 29 July 2011]

Gregory, Brad. Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Haller, William. The Elect Nation; the Meaning and Relevance of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

Hughes, Ann, ‘Clarke, Samuel (1599–1682)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2007 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5528, accessed 21 April 2011]

Ibeji, Mike. “Becket, the Church and Henry II.” Last modified February 17, 2011. [http://bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/becket01.shtml] Accessed June 13, 2011.

Jagger, Nicholas. ‘Philipps, Fabian (1601–1690)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2007 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/22115, accessed 11 May 2011]

Knott, John. “John Foxe and the Joy of Suffering.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996): 721-734.

Knott, John. Discourses of Martyrdom in English Literature: 1563-1694. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

83 Loades, David, ed. John Foxe and the English Reformation. Aldershot, England: Scolar Press: 1997.

Loades, David, ed. John Foxe: an Historical Perspective. Aldershot, England: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Marshall, Alan. ‘Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry (1621–1678)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/10868, accessed 18 May 2011]

Milton, Anthony. ‘Laud, William (1573–1645)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/view/article/16112, accessed 16 May 2011]

Monta, Suzannah. Martyrdom and Literature in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Olsen, Viggo. John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.

Smith, Nigel. ‘Bothumley, Jacob (1613–1692)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37163, accessed 22 Feb 2011]

Sommerville, Johann. “Commonwealth and Protectorate: 1649 – 1658,” accessed April 21, 2011 http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-29.htm

Wood, Diana, ed. Martyrs and martyrologies : papers read at the 1992 Summer Meeting and the 1993 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1993.

84 85